Upload
Login or register

thenez

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:5/04/2011
Last Login:9/29/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#8136
Highest Content Rank:#7428
Highest Comment Rank:#3206
Content Thumbs: 3 total,  37 ,  40
Comment Thumbs: 4281 total,  5599 ,  1318
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 66% (66/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5602
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:2072
FJ Points:534

  • Views: 1702
    Thumbs Up 10 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +8
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 09/23/15
    Help me Help me
  • Views: 776
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 4 Total: -1
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/23/15
    It's too late It's too late

latest user's comments

#310 - Why focus on how many lies each candidate has told, rather tha…  [+] (1 reply) 09/26/2016 on My Candidate is Better than... 0
User avatar
#311 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
just if we're trying to compare in some objective/quantifiable way. You can't really express the content of the lies as a number.

You are right that it does matter what the lies were actually about - for example, Hillary's lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia is relatively harmless compared to her lies under oath about her wrongdoing with the emails.

However, the quantity of lies a politician tells is still significant in getting a sense of how honest they are as a person. Even if most of the lies are relatively trivial, like lies about how much money they make or lies about whether or not they insulted someone else. If someone lies habitually about trivial things, it should be a red flag.
#179 - I don't really have any evidence, because I cant prove that tr…  [+] (3 replies) 09/26/2016 on My Candidate is Better than... 0
User avatar
#210 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
That's a fair point. It's very difficult to objectively compare two candidates' honesty unless you can find some way to quantitatively and reliably measure "honesty".
However I think it's possible to get a general sense by comparing the number of lies told by each candidate in the same period of time. Or, for example, fact-checking their speeches in a month and calculating the average number of lies per hour of speech time.
There are individual speeches by Trump and Clinton that have been fact-checked and can be compared in this way, such as their acceptance speeches at the RNC and DNC, respectively.
However one speech is too small a sample size, plus there's the question of fact-checker reliability (the main two political fact-checking websites have a left-wing bias).
So yeah, it's quite complicated but you still can make a general non-scientific assessment.

The cost of illegal immigration discussed in the article does not factor in the economic impact of illegal immigrants, only the amount of money required to deport them all and keep them out.
Here's a report from FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration nonprofit, which estimates that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $113 billion per year in state and federal taxes:
www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers
This cost is calculated from the state-funded education, welfare programs and medical programs that benefit illegal aliens. It also includes the associated costs of law enforcement such as ICE, which is included as well in the cost of deportation.
The calculation also subtracts the revenue received from taxes paid by illegal immigrants (all of them pay sales tax when they buy stuff, and some also pay other taxes, though they'd probably have to be committing some kind of identity fraud to do so).

This source (another anti-illegal immigration group) says that immigrants/foreign workers send back about $52.9 billion in remittances each year, with $41 billion going to Latin America.
www.cairco.org/issues/remittances
However these numbers aren't just for illegal immigrants; they include money sent home by legal migrant workers.
Aside from that there's also the argument that people have a right to do what they want with their own money. There's nothing wrong with Americans going abroad and spending money there, so why is there a problem with immigrants sending money to their families outside the US?

Tbh I've never really thought about illegal immigration with regard to tax evasion. My guess is that no, most illegal aliens aren't guilty of tax evasion in the US or in their home countries, unless they earn income or own property in one of those countries and don't pay taxes on it. I am a Russian-US dual citizen, but I live in the US and have never had to pay taxes to the Russian government, even though I'm a citizen of Russia. Because I've never worked or owned property there.

If illegal aliens have a legitimate job in the US, their income taxes would be deducted directly from their paycheck. However in order for this to happen they'd have to have provided a Social Security number, which they wouldn't legally have. So they either steal someone's identity (a felony), or make up a random SS number to use, which sometimes works.
Alternatively they might work "under the table" and not pay any income tax, but also probably get paid less and treated worse than ordinary employees.
User avatar
#310 - thenez (09/26/2016) [-]
Why focus on how many lies each candidate has told, rather than the content of the lies that were spoken?
User avatar
#311 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
just if we're trying to compare in some objective/quantifiable way. You can't really express the content of the lies as a number.

You are right that it does matter what the lies were actually about - for example, Hillary's lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia is relatively harmless compared to her lies under oath about her wrongdoing with the emails.

However, the quantity of lies a politician tells is still significant in getting a sense of how honest they are as a person. Even if most of the lies are relatively trivial, like lies about how much money they make or lies about whether or not they insulted someone else. If someone lies habitually about trivial things, it should be a red flag.
#120 - While you do present some compelling evidence against trump an…  [+] (5 replies) 09/25/2016 on My Candidate is Better than... -5
User avatar
#126 - Ruspanic (09/25/2016) [-]
I know you said you don't have time, but if you are arguing that Hillary is less honest than Trump, I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence, just as you asked me. I think that's fair.
Keep in mind that almost all of the evidence I presented for Trump's dishonesty, except for the New Yorker article, is about stuff that happened in this election season, so you'd want to compare Hillary's lies and flip-flops during the same period of time.

Setting aside the fact that Trump's deportation policy would cost more than illegal immigrants actually cost us www.wsj.com/articles/the-costs-of-mass-deportation-1458342018 , I think it's impractical to expect rigid enforcement of every law regardless of cost and humanitarian considerations. For example, even though marijuana use and Internet piracy are illegal, I don't think the government should go on a witch hunt for everyone who commits these crimes to ensure that they face the consequences. That is a waste of police time and taxpayer money, and I think the punishment is too harsh for the crime, considering what having a criminal offense on your record can do to your job prospects and quality of life.

Believe it or not, unlawful presence in the country is not actually a criminal offense in itself. It is against the civil law, but an illegal immigrant cannot be charged with a crime unless you can prove they entered the country illegally, which is a criminal misdemeanor. But something like 40% of illegal immigrants actually enter legally but overstay their visas. That is why in many places, illegal immigrants are deported only if and after they are arrested for an unrelated crime (and I support that).
blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html
But I don't support mass deportation for fiscal and humanitarian reasons.
User avatar
#179 - thenez (09/26/2016) [-]
I don't really have any evidence, because I cant prove that trump is any less honest, yadda yadda yadda..., than clinton. I was only pointing out that its quite impossible to really say who is the more honest, etc... person.

When you put mass deportation into that perspective, taking into account how and where the illegals might spend the money they earn, I agree, suddenly it becomes less favorable in my eyes. Even if they cost taxpayers a lot of money, I guess they are still more valuable spending that money in our country than outside. That does bring up the question, did the writers of that article take into account how much money is being sent back over the border, and how much extra money taxpayers have to pay every year because of them?

That last paragraph is kinda odd to me. The majority of illegals aren't paying taxes, shouldn't that classify as tax evasion? Or if they are still considered Mexican citizens, are they evading taxes in their own country? Or are they paying Mexico taxes while using our infrastructure? If that is the case, that really isn't fair to the US.
User avatar
#210 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
That's a fair point. It's very difficult to objectively compare two candidates' honesty unless you can find some way to quantitatively and reliably measure "honesty".
However I think it's possible to get a general sense by comparing the number of lies told by each candidate in the same period of time. Or, for example, fact-checking their speeches in a month and calculating the average number of lies per hour of speech time.
There are individual speeches by Trump and Clinton that have been fact-checked and can be compared in this way, such as their acceptance speeches at the RNC and DNC, respectively.
However one speech is too small a sample size, plus there's the question of fact-checker reliability (the main two political fact-checking websites have a left-wing bias).
So yeah, it's quite complicated but you still can make a general non-scientific assessment.

The cost of illegal immigration discussed in the article does not factor in the economic impact of illegal immigrants, only the amount of money required to deport them all and keep them out.
Here's a report from FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration nonprofit, which estimates that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $113 billion per year in state and federal taxes:
www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers
This cost is calculated from the state-funded education, welfare programs and medical programs that benefit illegal aliens. It also includes the associated costs of law enforcement such as ICE, which is included as well in the cost of deportation.
The calculation also subtracts the revenue received from taxes paid by illegal immigrants (all of them pay sales tax when they buy stuff, and some also pay other taxes, though they'd probably have to be committing some kind of identity fraud to do so).

This source (another anti-illegal immigration group) says that immigrants/foreign workers send back about $52.9 billion in remittances each year, with $41 billion going to Latin America.
www.cairco.org/issues/remittances
However these numbers aren't just for illegal immigrants; they include money sent home by legal migrant workers.
Aside from that there's also the argument that people have a right to do what they want with their own money. There's nothing wrong with Americans going abroad and spending money there, so why is there a problem with immigrants sending money to their families outside the US?

Tbh I've never really thought about illegal immigration with regard to tax evasion. My guess is that no, most illegal aliens aren't guilty of tax evasion in the US or in their home countries, unless they earn income or own property in one of those countries and don't pay taxes on it. I am a Russian-US dual citizen, but I live in the US and have never had to pay taxes to the Russian government, even though I'm a citizen of Russia. Because I've never worked or owned property there.

If illegal aliens have a legitimate job in the US, their income taxes would be deducted directly from their paycheck. However in order for this to happen they'd have to have provided a Social Security number, which they wouldn't legally have. So they either steal someone's identity (a felony), or make up a random SS number to use, which sometimes works.
Alternatively they might work "under the table" and not pay any income tax, but also probably get paid less and treated worse than ordinary employees.
User avatar
#310 - thenez (09/26/2016) [-]
Why focus on how many lies each candidate has told, rather than the content of the lies that were spoken?
User avatar
#311 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
just if we're trying to compare in some objective/quantifiable way. You can't really express the content of the lies as a number.

You are right that it does matter what the lies were actually about - for example, Hillary's lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia is relatively harmless compared to her lies under oath about her wrongdoing with the emails.

However, the quantity of lies a politician tells is still significant in getting a sense of how honest they are as a person. Even if most of the lies are relatively trivial, like lies about how much money they make or lies about whether or not they insulted someone else. If someone lies habitually about trivial things, it should be a red flag.
#88 - >not more honest, moral, accountable, principled, etc... …  [+] (15 replies) 09/25/2016 on My Candidate is Better than... +1
User avatar
#97 - Ruspanic (09/25/2016) [-]
>you can't prove that he isn't
But I can provide compelling evidence. He're a list I've compiled of his flip-flops
/Pure+coincidence/movies/5986740/96#96
You can add whether we should've gone into Libya to this list.

Here's a list I've compiled of his various scandals and unethical/illegal behavior
/Who+shouldn+t+vote+for+shillary/movies/5983203/154#154

Here's a video and some articles detailing some of Trump's many lies (or at least, factual errors) during this election:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ7_bo74VMA
www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/22/fact-checking-donald-trumps-remarks-on-taxes-debt-and-crime/

And I'd highly recommend reading this article, based on an interview with the guy who ghostwrote Art of the Deal: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

>no experience
He's never held a political/government position or served in the military. That's a fact. We have never had a President with neither political nor military experience.

>self-control
He brags, lies, insults and slanders even when it's not advantageous to him. He continued the feud with Khizr Khan against the advice of his advisers, and to great detriment to his poll numbers.

> knowledge
Trump constantly makes erroneous assertions about policy and the world and has proposed policies that are ludicrous to anyone with an understanding of how policy works.
- he didn't know what Brexit was
- he claimed to support "Article XII" of the Constitution, which doesn't exist
- he didn't know what a nuclear triad was and refused to admit it
- he claimed the TPP was written for China, even though China's not part of it
- he confused Irans Quds force with the Kurds
- he suggested it's not important for him to know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah
- he's said Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine if he becomes President, even though it already did
- the math on his proposed tax plan doesn't even remotely add up, and is projected to add $10 trillion to the deficit in 10 years (because slashes taxes but he barely cuts spending at all). And that's if you don't count his new proposed spending, like his half-trillion-dollar mass deportation proposal
- he proposed he could fix the debt by just "making a deal" to pay less, which would devastate the US's credibility as a lender as well as the world economy
- his trade policy would have absolutely disastrous effects on the economy because he doesn't seem to understand how trade works, or what trade deficits are
- he doesn't understand security umbrellas either, since he's proposed abandoning our commitments to Japan and South Korea and just letting them get nukes. He's also proposed letting Saudi Arabia get nukes. I hope I don't need to explain why that would be bad.

Also, Trump and people who know him both said he very rarely reads. Make of that what you will

>radical views
Clinton is trying hard to convince other liberals that she's a true progressive, but she didn't even support gay marriage until a few years ago. Shows you how much of an SJW she really is.
#129 - anon (09/25/2016) [-]
Would you kindly explain why would S.A getting nukes a bad thing? I do not follow poltics a lot and you've intrigued me.
User avatar
#153 - Ruspanic (09/25/2016) [-]
Sure. I guess I may have been a bit presumptuous.

First of all, Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorist groups in a region that is probably the world's biggest hive of terrorism. It practices and enforces a very draconian strain of Islam called Wahhabism (or Salafism) and funds Islamic schools around the world to promote this ideology, which helps to radicalize non-Saudi Muslims and drive them to terrorism as well.

While there is probably no danger of the Saudi government actually using nukes that it develops, there is a plausible danger of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists (for example, if they attack a convoy transporting nuclear material), which could enable them to create a "dirty" nuclear bomb. Most Islamist terrorist groups will probably not have reservations about using nuclear weapons against civilians.

Secondly, power politics in the Middle East revolve around a regional struggle for dominance between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Think of it like a mini version of the Cold War - the Saudis propagate Sunni Islam and ally with Sunni terror groups and countries, while Iran propagates Shi'a Islam and allies with Shi'a terror groups and countries. (The parallels don't end there - the US supports Saudi Arabia while Russia supports Iran.)

Currently the Saudis have the upper hand, but Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons to increase its regional influence, so that Saudi Arabia and other countries can't push it around. If Saudi Arabia also gains nukes, this would set off an even bigger regional arms race, where major Islamic countries like Egypt and Turkey might also try to gain nukes. Not only would this destabilize the region even more, but it would worsen the risk of terrorists getting nukes even more.

Third, it's generally accepted that nuclear powers do not attack each other, and are not attacked by other countries (only exception might be India and Pakistan). If Saudi Arabia gains nuclear weapons, it would have less reason to rely on America's security umbrella and therefore the US would have less leverage over the country. W

And finally, Saudi Arabia developing nukes would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I should say that my arguments here have counter-arguments, and there actually are some people who support the KSA getting nukes. But I assumed that most people on FJ would agree that it's a bad idea due to the heavy anti-Muslim and anti-Saudi sentiment on this site.
#168 - anon (09/26/2016) [-]
But why would anyone let the MAIN state-support terrorism *That is iran* be able to get nukes? A country that demonizes the west, promise to wipe out Israel and Any American-Supported country in the Region?

Sure SA might fuck up, But Iran would be a grave danger to the whole region now wouldn't it be?
User avatar
#173 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
I didn't say Iran should get nukes, I said Saudi Arabia shouldn't.

Anyway, Saudi Arabia sponsors more terrorism than Iran does. Iran also doesn't fund radical Shi'a schools around the world, as far as I'm aware, and I can't think of any recent terrorist attacks on Americans by Iran or even Shi'as in general. I don't trust Iran, but frankly I'd much rather we were aligned with Iran than with Saudi Arabia.

I don't think Iran would actually use nukes. They talk shit but they're not crazy.
#149 - anon (09/25/2016) [-]
Well.. follow any lead of Sunni islam extremism and you will eventually find SA.
Im not going to discuss internal islam structure but SA is Wahhabist, the most notorious form of orthodx islam, most muslims think SA is completly bonkers and extremely dangerous. SA having nukes would complicate a shitton of things in Arabia. If you think the current situation is bad.. oh boy.
#157 - anon (09/26/2016) [-]
It's funny because """"""most""""" muslims who think SA is total bonkers are nothing but the minority, and if it is really dangerous, how come they've got more than 25% of the country's population made up from many arabian and non-arabian nationality, most of whom are sunni muslim.
The only real danger in the region would be Iran, it has been held accountable numerous times to aid and treat injured terrorists and arming them, Let us not forget how they've decided to blow up mekah in the Hajj, strapping their pilgrimages with C4, and smuggling weapons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Mecca_incident
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-isis-terrorism-main-state-sponsor-of-terror-us-state-report-finds-a7063181.html

User avatar
#120 - thenez (09/25/2016) [-]
While you do present some compelling evidence against trump and evidence that he isnt infallible, none of that is enough to prove that he is any less honest, moral, accountable, etc... than hillary is.

On what is in your links about mass deportation, I will say this. For the most part, I agree with his deportation policy. Yes, it's shitty to deport the whole family rather than just the illegals, but its what must be done. The parents are still illegal, and therefore should not be in our country. Splitting the families should only be done in cases where the citizen is old enough, and able enough, to support themselves in this country. If they are too young and cannot generate the income needed to survive in this country, then they must not be separated from their families.

Now, I'm not going to go through literally everything you have posted, because I didn't expect there to really be that much, and frankly, I don't have the time to read the pages upon pages of material that have linked altogether. But even with all of that, I would still rather have trump in office than clinton. To me, clintons lies and schemes are far worse for us as a country than anything trump has come up with.
User avatar
#126 - Ruspanic (09/25/2016) [-]
I know you said you don't have time, but if you are arguing that Hillary is less honest than Trump, I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence, just as you asked me. I think that's fair.
Keep in mind that almost all of the evidence I presented for Trump's dishonesty, except for the New Yorker article, is about stuff that happened in this election season, so you'd want to compare Hillary's lies and flip-flops during the same period of time.

Setting aside the fact that Trump's deportation policy would cost more than illegal immigrants actually cost us www.wsj.com/articles/the-costs-of-mass-deportation-1458342018 , I think it's impractical to expect rigid enforcement of every law regardless of cost and humanitarian considerations. For example, even though marijuana use and Internet piracy are illegal, I don't think the government should go on a witch hunt for everyone who commits these crimes to ensure that they face the consequences. That is a waste of police time and taxpayer money, and I think the punishment is too harsh for the crime, considering what having a criminal offense on your record can do to your job prospects and quality of life.

Believe it or not, unlawful presence in the country is not actually a criminal offense in itself. It is against the civil law, but an illegal immigrant cannot be charged with a crime unless you can prove they entered the country illegally, which is a criminal misdemeanor. But something like 40% of illegal immigrants actually enter legally but overstay their visas. That is why in many places, illegal immigrants are deported only if and after they are arrested for an unrelated crime (and I support that).
blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html
But I don't support mass deportation for fiscal and humanitarian reasons.
User avatar
#179 - thenez (09/26/2016) [-]
I don't really have any evidence, because I cant prove that trump is any less honest, yadda yadda yadda..., than clinton. I was only pointing out that its quite impossible to really say who is the more honest, etc... person.

When you put mass deportation into that perspective, taking into account how and where the illegals might spend the money they earn, I agree, suddenly it becomes less favorable in my eyes. Even if they cost taxpayers a lot of money, I guess they are still more valuable spending that money in our country than outside. That does bring up the question, did the writers of that article take into account how much money is being sent back over the border, and how much extra money taxpayers have to pay every year because of them?

That last paragraph is kinda odd to me. The majority of illegals aren't paying taxes, shouldn't that classify as tax evasion? Or if they are still considered Mexican citizens, are they evading taxes in their own country? Or are they paying Mexico taxes while using our infrastructure? If that is the case, that really isn't fair to the US.
User avatar
#210 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
That's a fair point. It's very difficult to objectively compare two candidates' honesty unless you can find some way to quantitatively and reliably measure "honesty".
However I think it's possible to get a general sense by comparing the number of lies told by each candidate in the same period of time. Or, for example, fact-checking their speeches in a month and calculating the average number of lies per hour of speech time.
There are individual speeches by Trump and Clinton that have been fact-checked and can be compared in this way, such as their acceptance speeches at the RNC and DNC, respectively.
However one speech is too small a sample size, plus there's the question of fact-checker reliability (the main two political fact-checking websites have a left-wing bias).
So yeah, it's quite complicated but you still can make a general non-scientific assessment.

The cost of illegal immigration discussed in the article does not factor in the economic impact of illegal immigrants, only the amount of money required to deport them all and keep them out.
Here's a report from FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration nonprofit, which estimates that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $113 billion per year in state and federal taxes:
www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers
This cost is calculated from the state-funded education, welfare programs and medical programs that benefit illegal aliens. It also includes the associated costs of law enforcement such as ICE, which is included as well in the cost of deportation.
The calculation also subtracts the revenue received from taxes paid by illegal immigrants (all of them pay sales tax when they buy stuff, and some also pay other taxes, though they'd probably have to be committing some kind of identity fraud to do so).

This source (another anti-illegal immigration group) says that immigrants/foreign workers send back about $52.9 billion in remittances each year, with $41 billion going to Latin America.
www.cairco.org/issues/remittances
However these numbers aren't just for illegal immigrants; they include money sent home by legal migrant workers.
Aside from that there's also the argument that people have a right to do what they want with their own money. There's nothing wrong with Americans going abroad and spending money there, so why is there a problem with immigrants sending money to their families outside the US?

Tbh I've never really thought about illegal immigration with regard to tax evasion. My guess is that no, most illegal aliens aren't guilty of tax evasion in the US or in their home countries, unless they earn income or own property in one of those countries and don't pay taxes on it. I am a Russian-US dual citizen, but I live in the US and have never had to pay taxes to the Russian government, even though I'm a citizen of Russia. Because I've never worked or owned property there.

If illegal aliens have a legitimate job in the US, their income taxes would be deducted directly from their paycheck. However in order for this to happen they'd have to have provided a Social Security number, which they wouldn't legally have. So they either steal someone's identity (a felony), or make up a random SS number to use, which sometimes works.
Alternatively they might work "under the table" and not pay any income tax, but also probably get paid less and treated worse than ordinary employees.
User avatar
#310 - thenez (09/26/2016) [-]
Why focus on how many lies each candidate has told, rather than the content of the lies that were spoken?
User avatar
#311 - Ruspanic (09/26/2016) [-]
just if we're trying to compare in some objective/quantifiable way. You can't really express the content of the lies as a number.

You are right that it does matter what the lies were actually about - for example, Hillary's lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia is relatively harmless compared to her lies under oath about her wrongdoing with the emails.

However, the quantity of lies a politician tells is still significant in getting a sense of how honest they are as a person. Even if most of the lies are relatively trivial, like lies about how much money they make or lies about whether or not they insulted someone else. If someone lies habitually about trivial things, it should be a red flag.
#114 - roytmustang (09/25/2016) [-]
>Washington post
>Can't even read the WSJ page without making an account
>Other site has no sauce on any claims

Wtf dude
User avatar
#124 - Ruspanic (09/25/2016) [-]
I intentionally chose a range of established sources with different political leanings.
National Review is a conservative magazine, Washington Post is liberal-leaning, WSJ is somewhat conservative-leaning.

National Review links to many of its sources within the article, and for the things that don't have links it still tells you where most of the info comes from. You can look it up.

Sorry about the paywall, here's an alternative article without one:
blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/08/fact-checking-donald-trumps-speech-on-the-economy/
#17 - Might explain why all shoulder fired guns iv'e used felt like …  [+] (1 reply) 09/24/2016 on GM6 Lynx .50Cal bullpup 0
User avatar
#59 - twoeyedcyclops (09/24/2016) [-]
Could be, I only ever shot two guns, a 12 gauge when I was like 12 and a 30-30 a couple years ago, I know no matter how you hold them, you're gonna feel the kick, but how you hold them increases/decreases the kick you'll feel.
#21 - You can just buy a robot for less than that.  [+] (2 replies) 09/22/2016 on Life is worth living 0
User avatar
#22 - totallytito (09/22/2016) [-]
Kuratas costs 1 million. So no.
#23 - thenez (09/22/2016) [-]
>kuratas

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

your a fucking dumbass if you believe that's the average robot. pic related is the kind of stuff i'm talking about. with less than $100,000 you can buy this robot, minus all the tooling attached to it.
#19 - >a few thousand dollars  [+] (4 replies) 09/22/2016 on Life is worth living 0
#20 - totallytito (09/22/2016) [-]
Compared to the millions it takes to design a new product from scratch, it's a bargain!
Even videogames currently cost millions to develop.

Considering how you can take some off-the-shelf hydraulic parts and materials and build a robot for less than $100,000 its a steal.
User avatar
#21 - thenez (09/22/2016) [-]
You can just buy a robot for less than that.
User avatar
#22 - totallytito (09/22/2016) [-]
Kuratas costs 1 million. So no.
#23 - thenez (09/22/2016) [-]
>kuratas

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

your a fucking dumbass if you believe that's the average robot. pic related is the kind of stuff i'm talking about. with less than $100,000 you can buy this robot, minus all the tooling attached to it.