|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #12512 on CommentsLevel 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
OfflineSend mail to karlossacramento Block karlossacramento Invite karlossacramento to be your friend
latest user's comments
|#9211667 - eat da poopoo||07/06/2014 on retard forum||0|
|#9211328 - heard you were talking **** [+] (2 new replies)||07/06/2014 on retard forum||0|
|#21 - sounds reasonable, thanks! [+] (2 new replies)||07/04/2014 on Gently||+2|
|#18 - you seem to be knowledgeable. isn't it dangerous to d… [+] (4 new replies)||07/04/2014 on Gently||+4|
#20 - tedmosbey (07/04/2014) [-]
Actually Many of the best drivers use that to their advantage as it allows the car to turn just that much better. By reducing the airflow it allows that side of the car to get light causing it to lose grip and move towards the opposite side away from the wall. It is also about carrying the most momentum on corner exit to carry more speed down the straightaway. The closer to the wall the more track you are using which means you can accelerate harder due to the friction of the corner being reduced, due to a wider arc. While it is a delicate balance if done correctly it can be the difference between making a pass or getting beaten into the next corner, and in turn could be the winning move of the race.
|#61 - this should be stickied to the front page||07/03/2014 on when you realise||+64|
|#14 - ******** and Iquit||06/26/2014 on Dark Souls 2 in a nutshell||+2|
|#38 - that seems almost as unlikely as utterly ************ …||06/17/2014 on "God sent me to earth to...||+1|
|#174 - actually, weightlifters train the big 3, at least in my country||04/19/2014 on Unpopular Athletic Chick||+1|
|#71 - so close, yet so far...||04/03/2014 on Smooth.||0|
|#10 - your 50 states + 1 federal district are worse than our 28 states [+] (41 new replies)||03/23/2014 on Europoors||+136|
#126 - propanex (03/24/2014) [-]
By the definition of "state", any country is a state.
A governed populous with a defined border.+
State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity (such as an autonomous territory of a country).
#137 - propanex (03/24/2014) [-]
I never did that. He didn't either. No one did. Our states are still states. They can operate on their own level, with their own border, with their own population. In a sense, each state in America is a country... we are a union of "countries" called the United States... OF America.
You can consider Australia a state, country and a continent. Every country can be considered a state. There are 50 states, in a state, called United States of America.
#145 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/24/2014) [-]
You're confusing states with nation-states here with your comparison of American states (districts) to the nation-states of Europe. A state can be a country and it can be a district, but they are not the same entities even if they use the same word, which is why you can't compare them.
Texas is not more a country than Italy or Spain just because it's larger or more wealthy because it is not a sovereign entity, which is a necessity to be a nation-state. This is like claiming that French province of Champagne is it's own state and thus can be compared to a nation-state like China, simply because the word state can be applied to both. Political definitions can't be manipulated like that just because one word is sometimes used to describe two different.
#50 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/23/2014) [-]
Country size isn't important (does each square mile have a job or something?), population size is, and Europe has twice as many people as America. When you look at GDPPC (gross domestic product per capita), the whole of the EU produces a little more than half what the U.S. does per person. If the U.S. had as many people as Europe then our GDP would dwarf that of the EU.
#202 - snowshark (03/24/2014) [-]
Just gonna throw this out there.
If we're scaling up the population of the US to match that of the EU then you also need to bear in mind certain other factors like how there are some countries in the EU which, if the population was scaled up but the other percentages stayed the same, would be producing more than the US. If we start attempting to equalise and then judge off of those factors then you start running into all of the problems you get from opening the door to hypothetical situations.
What is more the entire concept of this form of comparison is moot in the first place because the US didn't produce ANY of that money, nor did the EU produce any of it's own money. It is all produced by human beings which are a constant factor between both of the superpowers. Everything comes down to the bottom line which is you can't measure how good a country is by the money it produces because there are far too many factors at play, most of which are out of the control of the government of the country itself.
Instead the country needs to be measured by the elements that make the country unique, like how video games may have similar graphics but different gameplay. In that sense you could argue that the EU is far better due to freedoms, diversity, and lack of corruption that is extant in certain constituent countries (though clearly not all of them) but then you'd argue that the US has better education but then you'd argue back that it in fact doesn't have better education as the EU has the UK which includes both Cambridge and Oxford and those top 5 universities are at a level which deviation means little wether it be higher or lower.
The truth is we live in an age growing more and more homogenised because everyone is pushing towards the one ideal, that of a world free of strife. An ideal that is perhaps unreachable in humanity's current state of mind but if everyone wants it (except the 1-3% who have the power to stop it happening) then it's gotta mean something.
#204 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/24/2014) [-]
You had me up until saying that the EU is better in lack of corruption. EU is filled with as many corrupt bastards as the U.S. I guess I agree with your overall sentiment, but since you can't measure a lot of these human values that define the real worth of a country, I turn to things that can be measured to at least get a decent estimate.
#210 - snowshark (03/24/2014) [-]
An exact quote is:
" In that sense you could argue that the EU is far better due to freedoms, diversity, and lack of corruption that is extant in certain constituent countries (though clearly not all of them)"
There are countries that are shockingly uncorrupt. Not clean by any means but certainly far less corrupted than the average 3rd Millennium dweller would imagine they would be. Still, the point was used in highlighting, and was not the focus.
In regards to that last part of what you said, you can't really say "Well these factors that matter are immeasurable but these factors that don't are very measurable so I will stick with them." A country's GDP really doesn't matter. New York produces a lot of money but a lot of that money isn't there because the US is the best country, it's there because New York is a world city like London. Apple have a new HQ in London because it has the kinds of companies in it that Apple wants to rub shoulders with, the same is true for companies that move into NY to bring their money.
The money isn't produced by the country, it's produced by businesses and many of those dollars that get produced are only being produced through either coincidence or through the foundations set up by the long-since dead. The fact that the money ended up in the US is more to do with the businesses than the plot of land they built their HQ on.
Hence you can't measure a country by that sort of margin because it is not only deceptive it is also fickle and not all that telling. Is China a good country because of it's high GDP? Or do their suspect practices factor into it? Does the same apply to the US?
At the end of the day a country is a place where people live and it is the quality of life that is important. A lot of money is made in the US but a lot of it goes to a relatively small number of people. Same with countries in the EU. Even when money is being talked about it is the human factor in relation to the money that is important.
#111 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/23/2014) [-]
That's true, but population sets an upper limit on how much you can do or how much money you can make. A certain number of people have an upper limit to their capital earning abilities, and the only way to increase it after that cap would be with more people. This is why China's GDP had been balooning: they have a crapload of people, but they haven't even come close to the maximum amount of capital that each person can produce, but are increasing it yearly.
#17 - komradkthulu (03/23/2014) [-]
karlossacramento only allows comments from friends.