SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.
The move, which would not need congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.
[...] Though its effects could be far-reaching, the proposal to limit citizenship to immigrants who have not used public assistance does not appear to need congressional approval. As the Clinton administration did in 1999, the Trump administration would be redefining the term "public charge," which first emerged in immigration law in the 1800s in order to shield the U.S. from burdening too many immigrants who could not contribute to society.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:24PM (44 children)
Actually, no, we don't need help. All we need to do is to stop giving away free shit. NATO - we discussed that not long ago. All those Euros with their hands out, expecting me, an American, to pay for their defense. China. We keep giving them money, in exchange for "cheap labor" and some other nonsense. Military "aid" all over the frigging world. Interventions in godforsaken fuckistans all over the world. And, immigrants, who all seem to be in need of not a handout, but truckloads of handouts.
I think we should move about halfway (or more) toward isolationism, and just cut everyone off. No more handouts, to anyone who isn't American.
We don't need your help - stop asking us for our help. Thanks for playing though!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:59PM (29 children)
How much did WWII cost us in current dollars vs how much does NATO cost us?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:11PM (28 children)
Dunno. If you can give me some relevance, I may put the effort into finding out. It seems an irrelevant question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:17PM (27 children)
Adjusted for inflation, the U.S. cost for WWII is over 4 trillion. Nato is a bargain if it helps prevent WWIII.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:28PM (6 children)
I think the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons will do that just fine. Or at least keep us from having to deal with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:48PM (5 children)
Cost of Nuclear Weapon Stockpile has been put a $5.48 trillion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:53PM (4 children)
That's an already paid cost. The upkeep is nothing even close to that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:32PM (3 children)
Well well you slimy bastard, let us compare the upkeep of our nuclear stockpile vs. NATO. So $20 billion average yearly (low ball estimate) vs. $350 million.
Last I checked a million is 1000x less than a billion, so 1/17500th of the budget costs. You lose again! What a maroon, would someone feed this guy to the sea bass?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:55PM (1 child)
So you're saying we should give up near absolute certainty of security for $20 billion in exchange for a bunch of allies that for the most part hate us and refuse to contribute even the pittance they've agreed to for $350 million? You're right, we should definitely do that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:06PM
Yup you are the dumbest person on here. Dumb dumb dumb. If there was a dumb contest you'd lose cause you're so dumb you'd fuck that up too!
Git smarter, git educated, git world experience, git anything other than what you've been doing cause its made you dumber than https://www.spanglercandy.com/candy-store/dum-dum-pops-bulk-lollipops [spanglercandy.com]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 17 2018, @11:09AM
Economics is more complicated than that. If the US gov spends $20B internally on maintaining nukes, that money goes somewhere. Nuke techs get to keep their jobs and pay taxes, companies that contract some of the services stay in business employing people.
I'm pretty sure that looking after their nukes is one of things that the USA won't outsource to China or India, so that $20B goes straight back into the domestic economy, and is probably mostly reclaimed through taxes and an improved economy.
And before you start claiming 'broken window fallacy', I know that maintaining nukes is a net negative, those factors are ameliorative. The true expense would still be much less than $20B.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:42PM (19 children)
Key word: "if". You have no valid evidence that NATO is preventing even a brush war anywhere in the world, let alone WWIII.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:50PM (17 children)
You have no valid evidence it hasn't either.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:00PM (16 children)
Yes, I have a lot of evidence. Pol Pot, Idi Amin a Dada, Khadaffi, Baby Doc - I could do some searches for more.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:39PM (9 children)
Goddamn, I don't think a discussion with you is even merited. You are a typical conservative, can't hold a complex thought in your head and you fall back so easily on beliefs. Nationalist asshole.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:50PM (8 children)
Correction: ASOCIAL nationalist asshole. Try to keep up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:56PM (7 children)
You realize admitting you're a bad person doesn't magically make you a good person right? Trump sure is trying to sell that idea, but apparently that is the limit where society says "nope, you went over the edge of crazy pal."
Congrats, you are on the level of Trump!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:20PM (6 children)
WTF did I admit to being a "bad person"? Perhaps you are less than literate. An ANTIsocial asshole would probably be a "bad person".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:37PM (5 children)
nationalist asshole == bad person
Except in times of war it correlates strongly with greedy, selfish, uncaring and willing to do "bad things" to "the enemy". You have repeatedly shown this to be an accurate description of yourself.
Most conservatives are actually quite good and nice people, right up until you start finding out about their nationalist / racist sides. Then nice is out the window and "waterboarding isn't torture" becomes an actual statement made by a hum... *person*.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:53PM (2 children)
You are expressing an opinion. Your opinion has little to do with reality. Waterboarding? You might want to search this site for instances of that word, associated with my name. I've never made excuses for waterboarding. At the very most, I will note that maybe waterboarding is less torturous than some other forms of torture. Except, it is still torture.
I strongly suspect that I am someone and something completely outside of your experience. Because you are unable to relate - I become a "bad person".
Let's try a little thought experiment. Would you prefer to be a predator, or prey? You answer that however you see fit, and I'll get back to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @09:50PM (1 child)
Your strong suspicions are wrong, I've gotten a very good idea of who you are. You're better than some conservatives but you have blind spots and you fall into some very nasty beliefs. I'm glad you think waterboarding is a form of torture, now go convince the other nationalist creeps who DO think it is ok.
The form of nationalism Trump is spouting, and you are here defending, is pretty nasty and historically has led to quite a few human rights abuses. It boils down to fear and hatred, sometimes more of one than the other.
As to your question, it is stupid. It isn't a thought experiment it is a simple choice. Are all old people this dumb?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 17 2018, @01:22AM
So - you are unable to "think outside the box".
Note that I didn't restrict you to a simple yes/no or true/false or black/white answer. Answer however you see fit.
The most acceptable answer would have been "neither".
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sheep+dog+defending+flock [youtube.com]
In any of those videos, you can find socialists, and antisocialists. The stars in each of them are the asocial personnas.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 16 2018, @07:04PM (1 child)
The Democrats in Congress seemed to have no problem with it, or else they would have impeached Bush and Cheney when they got the majority back. They didn't. They also failed to close Guantanamo when Obama held the Whitehouse and they had a majority in the House and Senate.
I wish they had done. I wish they had exhibited some shred of morality or integrity. But they didn't because they are bankrupt and apostate.
Torture is a crime against humanity. Nobody should support it. Anyone who does it deserves summary execution.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday August 18 2018, @01:51AM
When ISIS is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since medieval times. They chop off the citizens' or anybody's heads in the Middle East, because they're Christian or Muslim or anything else. We have that and we’re not allowed to do anything. We’re not playing on an even field. Would I feel strongly about waterboarding. As far as I’m concerned we have to fight fire with fire. Torture works. I feel it works. I asked my intelligence guys, does it work? They said, "oh, we don't call it torture, sir, we call it enhanced --" I said screw the political correctness, give me the answer! The answer was yes, absolutely. Don't tell me it doesn't work, it absolutely works. And don't worry, we're doing the legal on that one. Bush Jr. looked into the legal, we're taking another look. Because he was a VERY FOOLISH President, the worst until Obama came along. We're going to be legal. 100%. And fortunately we don't have Songbird McCain in the way. Because he caught cancer!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:44PM
How many of those were WORLD WARS? Your reading comprehension is lacking.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 17 2018, @07:24AM (4 children)
NATO's purpose is not to prevent wars anywhere in the world. The treaty is designed to protect the region bordering the North Atlantic. How many wars have there been in those countries?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday August 18 2018, @02:30AM (3 children)
Korea, no Atlantic boarder. But Korean War was NATO. That one lasted 70 years. Until I ended it. Bosnia, not on the Atlantic. Yugoslavia, not on Atlantic. But, NATO wars there too. So the answer to your question is ZERO. NATO's been in a bunch of wars. But ZERO on Atlantic. VERY DUMB wars in my opinion. Not on Atlantic, why bring in NATO, right? Iraq, not Atlantic. But NATO went there to teach them how to fight wars. Because they were terrible at it. Well, they learned. And we got ISIS!!! Afghanistan, same thing. Bunch of NATO guys in there teaching them how to fight wars. Which they were doing VERY WELL, trust me. And we just had 3 guys killed over there. 3 very brave soldiers from Czech. Our thoughts & prayers are with their families. But, terrible waste!
France, they did something very smart. They said to the USA, "teach us how to do nuclear." We taught them, they built their nuclear, they left NATO. They saved so much money. And did beautifully for themselves. For many years. UK, they're leaving EU. And they have their own nuclear -- another Country we taught to do nuclear. In exchange for, they taught us Nerve Gas (VX). And they're still doing Nerve Gas, look at the folks getting sick & dieing (RIP!) with Novichok. From Porton Down. Anyway, UK can leave NATO. France can leave. USA can leave. And all join up with Russia and a few others. The Countries that have the biggest & best Nuclear Buttons. When we call the other countries, they'll answer. When we ask for something, they'll give. And no more worries about very aggressive Montenegro getting us into fights!!!!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 18 2018, @04:52AM (2 children)
The Korean War was a United Nations operation - not NATO. You are wrong in your claim.
The war in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (which includes Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzogovina) was a UN operation prior to NATO taking joint action for cease-fire violations. I wear both UN and NATO medals having completed 3 tours during that campaign. Go read up on your politics to discover how NATO became involved [wikipedia.org] but I offer this quotation from that source:
Also involved in FRY under the UN, were the Russians and Ukrainians - you might have noticed that they are NOT members of NATO, various Asian and African nations (all non-NATO) and many others. Again you are wrong in your claim that these were NATO operations.
The 'NATO' involvement in the Iraqi wars are a result of of NATO nations providing support to a US-led operation (in addition to many other non-NATO nations) as part of a multi-national force, with reluctant approval from the UN, which included [wikipedia.org] El Salvador, Estonia, Moldova, South Korea, Tonga, Mongolia, and many others. Do tell me when those nations joined NATO please. (I proudly wear those medals too.) You are wrong yet again.
Your attempts at humour would benefit from being based on facts rather than just spouting the first thing that comes into your head. Just sayin...
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:34AM (1 child)
I said Bosnia, not Atlantic. Yugoslavia, not Atlantic. You say, wrong. I asked my guys, look that one up. They call it Adriatic. Sounds like Atlantic, connects to Atlantic, it's not Atlantic, easy to get them mixed up. So, not wrong.
I said Bosnia & Yugoslavia, NATO wars there. You say wrong, you say you were in Yugoslavia -- you call it FRY, short for Yugoslavia -- for NATO, it wasn't war. You were there for an operation. For a campaign. And you won many medals for being a great and very brave soldier. For your heroism -- congratulations, by the way, that's a tremendous quality in a person!! And medals don't mean it was a war, we have so many heroes who, they never fought in a war but they were very brave. But look at your quote. At the page the quote came from. They call it the Bosnian War. And in your quote, they call it war, they say NATO came to fight. So, NATO war in Bosnia. Or, you say Yugoslavia. And can we say Kosovo? Maybe you call it something else. Let's say Kosovo, big war there, NATO fighting there. Lots of wars there and NATO was in them very deeply. So, you have different words for it. Different word for Bosnia, different word for Yugoslavia, different word for war. And possibly I didn't use the 100% exact words. But NATO was there fighting in those places. NATO didn't start the wars. But NATO didn't stop them from happening. And NATO jumped in, they call it escalating. Sounds like you're going up the beautiful escalator in Trump Tower. But it means, bigger war. More great, and very brave soldiers getting wounded. Or dieing. More regular folks wounded & dieing. More property damage. Big expenses for our military. And, possibly, yours. America pays so much so our military will be PERFECTO, so many of these other countries don't. They send their soldiers, like you. That's great. But they need to pay much more.
I'll tell you, we spent A LOT of money on our Stealth Fighter. For our Nighthawk, beautiful name. And for a long time it was supposed to be a secret. Where other countries didn't know we had it. Then somebody LEAKED to our News Media, they printed the news about that one. Not totally secret anymore. But, our enemies didn't have it. Iraq, so many flights, that went PERFECTO. Dumb war. But PERFECTO so far as, they didn't shoot down our Stealth Fighter. Yugoslavia shot it down. And showed it to Russia. So Russia could find out so much more than they knew from the leak. They found out our very expensive secrets and we got NOTHING for it. We could have made a great deal with Russia, they got the information from Yugoslavia and we got ZERO in the deal. Because we went into a dumb war. Not great. Not great at all.
I'm very worried about Montenegro. Little country, used to be part of Original Yugoslavia. Which was much much better than the FRY. They had a very strong military guy, Marshal Tito. They needed a dictator, he was a dictator. And he was magnificent at it. But now Montenegro is its own thing. Montenegro, unfortunately, was allowed to join NATO. They get into a war, America is supposed to come and fight for them. Well, we don't have to come and fight for them. The great thing about treaties is, we can break them. And believe me, I'll break ANY treaty that's not in America's interest. That doesn't put America First. I'll tell you about Montenegro, they're very aggressive. It's unbelievable. I was in Brussels at NATO headquarters. And Duško M. from Montenegro was there. And for no reason, he pushed me. The Fake News Media says I pushed him. And I did push him. But, he pushed me first!! And this is the guy that's saying, protect us with your nuclear.
Korea. I said, Korean War was NATO. You say wrong, not NATO. And I asked my guys, they say that one wasn't NATO. OK, not NATO. That's true. I said something "wrong." But not as wrong as you might think. Because Korean War was MUCH WORSE because of NATO. For other reasons, but because of NATO. USA wouldn't have gone to fight that one if we didn't have NATO. Our Generals would have said, "oh, let the Koreans fight it out among themselves, it's none of our business." And now, we wouldn't be saying Korean War, we would say Korean Civil War. And probably, we wouldn't say North Korea, South Korea. We would just say Korea. As I like to say. I'm trying to put Korea back together. And it's not easy.
I'll tell you, they would have stayed out of Korea. They didn't want to be in 2 wars at once. Which at that time was considered a very big problem. But they had the NATO treaty. And they said, let's get NATO ready. Let's get ready for another very big war in Europe. While we join the nice little war in Korea. So, NATO wasn't there, in Korea. And, NATO didn't start that one. But NATO was a reason that one became such a big deal. You're trying to convince us that NATO stopped many wars in a certain part of the world. Around the North Atlantic. Well, it didn't stop the Korean civil war from starting. And so many countries that were in NATO went into that one. They thought they were OK to get into the war in Korea because NATO had their back in Europe. Nobody bombing London -- except the Irish. Nobody bombing Paris. Nobody bombing Brussels. Korea, lots of bombing. Terrible time for Korea. Because all those other Countries came in, they call it escalating. Sounds nice, it's not nice. NATO countries losing so many brave soldiers. So much equipment. To protect London, Paris, Brussels from getting bombed by Korea. Very dumb!!
And by the way, can we say Libya? That one was a Crooked Hillary number. But also NATO. Libya, not on our Atlantic Ocean. They had Colonel Qaddhafi -- who I rented one of my estates to for a little while. He built a very goofy tent that my neighbors hated -- believe me, it's a long story about that one. Great guy, very strong military guy like you. Who won many medals like you. And he did some things that weren't great -- don't we all? He did the Lockerbie thing, terrible bombing. But, he apologized. He paid A LOT of money. And he said, no more terrorism. No more bombings, no nothing. And he made his Country so great. Which Obama and Crooked Hillary hated, they started a civil war. And NATO came in, they said, "oh look, a war, let's go and fight in that one." And killed Colonel Qaddhafi's kids. Bombed everybody around him, the folks that were trying to protect him. And his enemies stabbed him in the ass and he died (RIP!!!). Because of NATO. Not 100% NATO but they were a big part. And then the ISIS flags went up all over Libya. Great job, NATO!
You said, Russia is not a member of NATO. That's so true. And maybe we'll change that. I had a little talk with President Putin of Russia. But many people say, the purpose of NATO is to be an enemy of Russia. To be a very strong enemy to Russia. And Russia used to be very strong. When they were USSR, very strong. And after that, pretty strong, until 1998. Big big financial crisis in 1998. And did you notice, that's when NATO went wild. Kosovo, Bosnia, Yugoslavia -- the FRY as you call it, Libya. All happening after 1998. Maybe what we need is to have Russia VERY STRONG. To prevent dumb wars!!!
Iraq & Afghanistan. You say, NATO was never in Iraq. Ask your Generals, NATO went there. Not to fight, I didn't say they were there to fight. To teach Iraq -- the soldiers of Iraq -- how to fight much harder. Much more killing, much more property damage. And that's a very official NATO thing. Not just, oh, this Country is in NATO, they make porn there, it's NATO porn. No. It's official NATO business. Same in Afghanistan. NATO is in there, 100% officially. Not fighting, I didn't say fighting! Although, those 3 guys from Czech got killed over there. 3 very brave soldiers from Czech came to teach, they ended up dieing. NATO is in there teaching the soldiers to be better. Teaching them, I assume, to "escalate." Believe me, it's not better for the folks on the other side. Or for regular folks.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:47AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:25PM
Evidence? There hasn't been a war inside a NATO country since it was founded. (I'd have to look into the specifics of the Cyprus spat between Turkey and Greece, though.)
More evidence: if you were NOT in NATO, Russia can just roll in and take part of your country from you. Example: Ukraine.
NATO was built as a bulwark against Russia, and it has worked MARVELOUSLY. This is why Russia hates it so.
(Score: 2, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:23PM (13 children)
You're the next dumbest after Buzz - who is dumb-on-a-matter of principle.
Let me demonstrate:
Total contribution of US to NATO=0.05% from total US defence budget.
Me thinks your "But... but.. NATO is robbing us" is a not only a red herring, it's an incandescently bright red herring.
It amounts to about USD1/year/american - don't tell me with that extra dollar per year you will be suddenly sooo much better.
You know what? If NATO isn't the money waster it was sold to be, one may get to ask... ummm... actually who is wasting the rest of 99.95%** of it?
I bet that the ones who have you by the nuts in regards with the defence billions is... you guessed it, the MIC!
The MIC is the only one who has something to gain from a constant waste on munition and technology, year after year.
Cut some money from them and, yeah, you may need much less help at home.
Will you dare to do it? I have my doubts about.
** Well, maybe not all of them, after all there are some soldiers and (maybe) former navy cooks to be paid.
Guess what? Your MIC won't be at all happy with a position of "halfway (or more) toward isolationism".
Who knows, they may even decide to invent some wars.
---
Anyway, may your wishes come true too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:53PM (12 children)
Possibly, using some narrowly defined "contributions", the US may "contribute" less than other member states. But, that $350 million figure? Nonsense. It probably costs that much just to send one destroyer on a STANAVFORLANT mission. In fact - with the cost of fuel, I KNOW it costs that much to run a destroyer for a typical 4 month mission. Ship's fuel economy isn't measured in miles per gallon, after all. It is measured in gallons per minute. If the ship is just sitting, dead in the water, with the boilers burning to produce electricity, the ship is burning 20 gpm, minimum.
I'm not one bit interested in this narrow definition. A more meaningful measure is how much NATO costs the nation. And, "how much" isn't measured strictly in dollars and cents, either. The US supplies as much as any NATO member nation, in just about any category you wish to choose. People, consumables and expendables, hardware and equipment, high tech and low. In second place, you probably have the UK. I wouldn't even want to guess at who follows in third place.
You want to step back and regroup, or do you want to double down on that claim?
BTW - you should have realized by now that I have nothing but contempt for the military industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us, and we ignored him.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:29PM (5 children)
Bitches and moans then moves the goal posts when his argument falls apart. What a little bitch.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:44PM (4 children)
NATO costs the US a helluva lot more than any other member state. I repeat - the UK is probably second place, and third place is a very distant third.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:03PM (3 children)
Gee, country with the 3rd largest population and -
You are like the rich assholes that want a tax break, please google "how to get a brain transplant" because yours is broken.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:17PM (2 children)
You've just reminded me of something. Socialism is the ideology of the envious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:48PM (1 child)
May your sins have no end and the hell fire burn twice as hot.
Triggered boomer is triggered, news at 11.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:54PM
ROFLMAO - another Christian fundamentalist finding fault? Alas, my sins will cease when my heart stops beating - just as yours will.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:30PM (3 children)
You aware that it wasn't NATO that pushed in Iraq during the time of the chimpotus. With the continuation in Afghanistan.
Nor were the European pushing US to stir the shit in Syria, until ISIS got enough undefended space to cause troubles (with American weapons [wired.com])
(And certainly the Europeans advised his Orangeness to stop shaking the boat with the Iranians.)
All of the above dwarf the budget you "sink" in NATO at least two orders of magnitude.
I'm telling you - trying to improve your finances on the NATO's account is like being worried about the leak in the Titanic captain's toilet after striking that iceberg.
But anyway, if you want your isolationism, you can pedal on this idea all you want - just don't try to justify it ex post facto, it's simply dumb.
The MIC will let you live with the delusion you have nothing but contempt for them, while they know very well they will have 5-10% of your tax money year after year. Contempt vs hard-cold money is a good deal for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:47PM (2 children)
There, you have made a valid point. Strike that word "delusion", and the point becomes more valid. I have few delusions, and none of them involve the MIC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:21PM
You do realize that you are uniquely unqualified to determine whether you are deluded, or do we need to bust out the dictionary?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:35PM
s/delusion/impression/g
Fair? Or do you prefer "out-of-mindness about/forgetting about it most of the time"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:08PM (1 child)
One of our white ships is about 20K/day. I assume a destroyer is about the same.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:16PM
I am unfamiliar with your "white ships". But, no, I don't believe that 20k pays for one day of operations of a destroyer.