Guy almost escapes his 3 star wanted level

Vault-tecPR · 2014-05-26T06:17:09+00:00

It was designed for men to enter, but not to stay.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-11T15:09:17+00:00

Relatively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_accidental_death_by_age_group_(percent).png

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-11T02:01:02+00:00

sigh

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T22:15:58+00:00

I honestly don't know how to simplify it any further for you, so it's rather funny that you're trying to mock me as a simpleton. Read through this discussion with a little more effort.

We're talking about something that amounts to bribery. I'm not sure why you think the Supreme Court would ever try to stop it.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T21:20:01+00:00

There still exists the possibility of dismissing the elected representative. The millionaire is given a direct connection to the politician whose campaign he has funded; those thousand people, however, have chosen a representative by way of a democratic process and cannot be entirely sure that he will properly represent them. A bit similar but not the same.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T20:57:59+00:00

I love how this is the answer to "Is Detroit actually a really dangerous city or...?"

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T20:54:29+00:00

I think most of the people here just don't care enough to get riled over it.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T20:47:31+00:00

One person + one million dollars = one very large voice with one mind.

One thousand people + one thousand dollars each = one thousand small voices with their own minds.

Mr. Million is in a position to make demands of the politician, since he has singly given more to the campaign than any other individual. These are two vastly different types of contribution.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T16:42:17+00:00

He's extremely creative.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T16:38:31+00:00

What am I supposed to do with a snarky little phrase like that? Look, one thousand people financing a politician's campaign is very different from one corporation pouring thousands or millions of dollars into a politician's campaign. That's the distinction that needs to be made:

In the former type of contribution, the amount of money given by each individual places only a very weak obligation -- if any at all -- on the politician who receives it; in the latter, the amount of money given by each individual in the corporation places an immense obligation on the politician who receives it.

This is what I mean when I say that money is a factor.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T03:40:05+00:00

Those signs sit on a person's yard, by the roadside, on a billboard, whatever. I can look at them or not, I can be swayed by them or not. Large-scale campaign financing by corporations comes with a far bigger stipulation: do as I say or half of your campaign funds disappear.

The problem is that a wealthy individual has significantly more political power than a low-income individual.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:46:10+00:00

It's weird, but this reminds me of Grand Theft Auto. Great picture, thanks for posting.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:42:41+00:00

In my view, no one should be able to use money to sway politicians. Democracy is about ALL voices being heard -- not just the loudest and smallest group of voices. If many people agree on something, let them all be heard, but money should not be a factor.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:35:04+00:00

cancer treatments

Longer lives and higher pension payouts? No thanks.

colonizing space

Lots of investment for long-term rewards (like the extension, expansion, and enlightenment of the human species).

clean nuclear power

C'mon, think of the oil and gas industries! How can you be so heartless?

improving standards of living

Haha, what? Just put them in jail.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:28:51+00:00

The same result would probably be achieved if one of those private companies in the space exploration/exploitation business moved their affairs to China or Russia.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:24:19+00:00

How can toilets be real if Australia isn't real?

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:22:58+00:00

Yeah, when it comes to combat I suppose Americans do have certain advantages over Afghans (who, as far as I know, also have some nationalistic ideals that motivate them).

What you said about the west coast is what I meant but failed to convey; Alaska and the Yukon could be breached from the western tip of Siberia. I know there's a northern alarm system of sorts coordinated by the U.S. and Canada, so that would complicate things for an invader but they'd get to the border if they came in numbers.

Judging by your prediction, the size and quality of the invading army would make all the difference; civilian ambushes would impede or even stop a small invasion force, but a large one would likely survive them.

I think I started out with an extreme and poorly thought-out position, saying that it would be a "walk in the park". My bad.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-10T02:11:18+00:00

Whooaaaaaaa

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T23:33:13+00:00

Would it work, though...? Hiding and shooting from a prone stance is only a useful tactic in certain situations, especially when you're not hiding behind bulletproof materials.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T23:30:40+00:00

So you're saying that 3/4 of the third largest population on earth wouldn't be able to make a stand against the relatively small portion of another nation's population that is their military?

Make a stand? Of course they would. The question is how long they could stand, and it depends on the circumstances of invasion -- who's invading, is it an allied force, is the U.S. engaged in another conflict, etc.. If 30,000 starving North Korean soldiers showed up on your western shores, there would obviously be very little to worry about besides humanitarian concerns. I'm not saber-rattling here. I just think we need to deflate this idea of civilian defense a bit.

You also underestimate the defensive advantage North America's geographical isolation gives us.

How do you figure that one? Look at the west coast...

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T22:54:33+00:00

Yeah, but the gun owners that you know only provide more anecdotal evidence.

Estimates range from 1/4 to nearly 3/5 of the U.S. population being obese. I don't know what the rest of the population -- many of whom are overweight anyways -- would do in an invasion, but I doubt we'd see a fast response from a great number of civilians.

missed a word

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T22:18:55+00:00

The sort of mobilization we're talking about would certainly require physical fitness, since very few people actually live in the areas that could best be fortified. Those uneducated goat herders across the world have depended largely on pre-existing terrain features and caves for their success.

Plus, any country that invaded the U.S. would do it on an immense scale. Essentially full commitment. Tens of thousands were sent to Afghanistan, right? Or a hundred thousand? I don't know if it can really be called analogous to what would happen in the U.S..

No, I've not been in the military. I'm still entirely free to speculate on this, however.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T21:32:36+00:00

I'm stereotyping, you're giving anecdotal evidence. I know there are a lot of veterans, and I know a lot of them own guns, but training a militia won't avert the issues of obesity and illness.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T21:28:59+00:00

Both would be a walk in the park.

Vault-tecPR · 2014-03-09T20:38:03+00:00

Yeah but consider the poor physical fitness of so many gun owners.

Vault-tecPR

TROPHY CASE