Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 88 of 94 FirstFirst ... 38788687888990 ... LastLast
Results 6,526 to 6,600 of 6993
  1. #6526
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    The same thing could be said about Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP. By agreeing to the election she has allowed the Tories to wrap themselves in the unionist flag and put a clause in their manifesto saying that they will block any Scottish independence calls for the life of the next parliament. That then gives Scottish voters not wanting independence an outlet as a protest vote and could result in a reduced SNP number of seats. Crucially though, if the Tories do establish an increased majority due to Labours likely poor performance and insert the unionist clause in the manifesto their hopes of an Independence referendum are off the table for at least 5 years.
    By waiting , and the tory prosecutions come about this summer , Tory majority disappears and tory sleaze then becomes a campaigning issue, likelyhood then is that SNP could then be necessary to labour to form a coalition government. Their price for agreeing to be coalition partners could then be getting the second independence referendum that they want.
    The bit I've deleted I don't really disagree with in general, some of the conclusions maybe a bit. The point about lib dems gaining labour seats i find a bit hard to swallow just because of the numbers in most places and the realisation from those labour voters that by voting lib dem in libdem/labour seats they aren't really helping the "cause".

    SNP want out of the UK that is their main goal. SNP didn't reject the notion they didn't vote on it, this is different because one is them voting and losing (which they would have done anyway because Corbyn wants out and labour think being "remainy" ruins their chances, pandering bullshit as usual so they aren't stopping it as it looks week, although 3 years down the line who cares I agree) gives the frame that they can't really make a difference in UK politics. The other is them saying we abstain from this bullshit, if only we weren't governed by them we could ignore all this bullshit. They also benefit from teh fact there hasn't really been enough time for them to fuck anything up, they are basically in the same position but with a remain scotland that at the same time taking the most pro-remain stance.

    To the SNP labour losing seats and them staying strong isn't a bad thing because a labour uk is good with Scotland really.
    Last edited by Savy; 04-24-2017 at 10:59 PM.
  2. #6527
    As an aside from the tiny bits I've read recently labour I actually much more agree with the labour out campaign than anything else so I'm quite liking it. That being said my views on the EU in general seem to have absolutely no agreement and it is basically coming across as a half-arsed job that compromises on most of the issues that those who voted out voted out for.

    I also don't understand how conservatives (the economic party lol) can put up with all this awful economic pandering shit, I'm a bit annoyed as I genuinely thought Hammond would be better, and he will be but still. The sad thing is it's much more effective pandering than what anyone else is doing.

    Sick of the browns and your energy bills, best of both worlds.*


    *Tories if you want to use that slogan I want a few quid.
    Last edited by Savy; 04-24-2017 at 10:55 PM.
  3. #6528
    God damn it England, your elections are as boring as your football!!
  4. #6529
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Hahahahaha

    Holy hypocrites, Batman!

    "Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), who authored this amendment, confirmed this was the case: Members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations. Health law expert Tim Jost flagged this particular issue to me.

    A bit of background is helpful here. Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage through the health law’s marketplace, just like Obamacare enrollees. The politics of that plank were simple enough, meant to demonstrate that if the coverage in this law were good enough for Americans, it should be good enough for their representatives in Washington.”*
    http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/1542998...ahca-amendment


    Insert Mitch McConnell's dog-bark laugh here
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  5. #6530
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Hahahahaha

    Holy hypocrites, Batman!



    http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/1542998...ahca-amendment


    Insert Mitch McConnell's dog-bark laugh here
    LOL, you think it's a good thing for the government to make decisions for people and eliminate market competition? Why should politician's staff members be subject to this? They're just working folk, doing a job, like anyone else. Why are they denied the advantages of making their own decisions in a free market?

    Also, this is a lot of hubbub about nothing. There's not going to be any exemptions or whatever you're in a tizzy about here. For all we know it was merely a bargaining chip used as leverage in negotiations. Mark whats-his-face from the freedom caucus said his team isn't on board with the bill if it contains that clause. And they're the ones that sunk it the first time around.

    Also, Vox?? LOL
  6. #6531
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Also, Vox?? LOL

    Say hi to Bill'O for me.

    Oh, I mean Hannity. Or is it Tucker something?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  7. #6532
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    LOL, you think it's a good thing for the government to make decisions for people and eliminate market competition? Why should politician's staff members be subject to this? They're just working folk, doing a job, like anyone else. Why are they denied the advantages of making their own decisions in a free market?


    Also, this is a lot of hubbub about nothing. There's not going to be any exemptions or whatever you're in a tizzy about here. For all we know it was merely a bargaining chip used as leverage in negotiations. Mark whats-his-face from the freedom caucus said his team isn't on board with the bill if it contains that clause. And they're the ones that sunk it the first time around.

    So you do not see any hint of hypocrisy here? I mean, one would say if you are so opposed to Obamacare, why strive for its elimination for others yet keep using it yourself?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  8. #6533
    Seems timely.

  9. #6534
    ^^^
    No love for this? I would have thought Ong would have liked it at least, if not joined the band.
  10. #6535
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    It's alright. Don't like his voice. One song is ok, but as soon as they start playing the next one, I'm getting out of earshot.

    Check out my lecture on the difference between hipsters and crusties. See newest comments.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #6536
    Trump seems to be having a bit of a nightmare so far with what's going on, is it really that bad/as newsworthy as it is over here in the UK.
  12. #6537
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Trump seems to be having a bit of a nightmare so far with what's going on, is it really that bad/as newsworthy as it is over here in the UK.
    I'm not really sure what you mean by "nightmare", "bad", or "newsworthy"

    Honestly, I'm barely even half tuned-in anymore. It's just the same old shit. Someone in the press spins a tiny shred of something fishy into a massive call for impeachment. It's getting tiresome and silly.

    I'm not sure if you're referring to the allegations that Trump obstructed justice in the Flynn investigation, or that he leaked classified material during a meeting with the Russians. Liberals seems to be pretty gleeful about both. But I think it's a long way from being a "nightmare"

    No one was talking impeachment when Obama went on National TV and said "hillary did nothing wrong" while the DOJ was in the middle of its investigation. That could be considered an obstruction of justice, or at least, an interference in an active investigation.

    There's also a double standard when it comes to the Russian discussion. Are democrats really going to claim the high ground when it comes to leaking of classified material? They're really gonna sit in Hillary's corner, Manning's corner, and Snowden's corner while simultaneously pointing the finger at trump?

    Are people in the UK dumb enough to buy into that? If so, that probably explains why it's become such hubbub over there.
  13. #6538
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's always compelling to point fingers at the top of the pyramid.

    The notion that calling for impeachment will change anything is beyond me. Clinton was impeached. He remained in office and completed his term. The consequence of the impeachment was that he had to say he's sorry for pretty-much, if maybe not technically, lying while under oath in a court of American law.

    He clearly, (though not found guilty by a court, since the case was never tried) broke the law in lying, and if he wasn't lying, he was making a mockery of the judicial system by toying with ambiguous meanings in his answers. If he wasn't using the words in the same way as the attorney asking the questions, then he wasn't really answering the questions was acting in contempt of court.

    My point is that he was caught on tape doing this and his response was, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," which is among the most adolescent things I've heard an American politician say, and that's a high bar. Another point is that Nixon was impeached because of similar hard evidence of committing crimes. My point is that Trump isn't getting impeached over any circumstantial accusations. It's going to take hard, irrefutable evidence of obviously bad behavior.

    ***
    I can't imagine being more politically opposed to anyone than I was to GW bush, and we all lived through those 8 years.

    I'm sure everything will be fine.
  14. #6539
    Seems pretty obvious to me that if Trump really did break the law by saying something to Comey about the Flynn investigation, then Comey is in some serious fucking trouble. You can't be director of the FBI, witness obstruction of justice, and then just let it go.

    It seems pretty obvious and transparent that Comey's only complaining now (through anonymous sources) 'cause he got fired. Waaaaaaaaa
  15. #6540
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,359
    Location
    Finding my game
    So Trump possibly breaking the law is no biggie but Comey not reporting on that is serious. I can't even.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  16. #6541
    surviva316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,750
    Location
    Tough when Wet
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Honestly, I'm barely even half tuned-in anymore.
    Let me recap for you then:

    • Trump fired the FBI Director who was leading the Russia-Trump investigation for a reason that no one bought in the first place (because he was unfair to Trump's political opponent 6 months ago), and then in an interview made it quite clear that it was actually all about how the Director was running the Russia-Trump investigation.
    • That person then gave his friends the go ahead to share information he'd been keeping close to the vest about his then-boss (Trump), including that Trump had invited him to dinner shortly after his inauguration to twice ask for a vow of loyalty from him and that Trump had told him to stop investigating Flynn's connections with Russia.
    • Meanwhile, Trump held a meeting with Russian officials, including Kislyak (who was the one who discussed sanctions with Flynn which got him fired, and who had multiple meetings at the RNC with Sessions that forced him to recuse himself from the investigation), and forbade US media to cover it, but did allow Russian propaganda to attend.
    • It was then revealed that during this meeting, Trump shared with Russians a piece of intelligence that had the highest grade of classification and that Israeli intelligence shared with select US officials in confidence. He shared several details, including where the operative collected this information, making it very easy to trace back the source. Several international sources have since voiced concerns about sharing confidential information with US intelligence while Trump is in the White House.
    • A special counsel was appointed to run the Russia-Trump investigation impartially.
    • It was revealed that before Trump selected Flynn for national security advisor (which receives the highest security clearance in the land), Trump's transition team was notified that Flynn was under investigation for having contracts with foreign political leaders, including a contract to lobby in the US on behalf of Turkey's president, Erdogan (FWIW, Erdogan is the fella making news this week for sicking his goons on US citizens holding a protest on US soil). This means that Trump was informed that Flynn was under investigation for working on behalf of foreign powers before selecting him in the first place, he was warned by then-Attorney General Yates that Russia could very well have blackmail on Flynn that compromises his position before inauguration, and *then* was informed that he had illegally discussed confidential information with a Russian diplomat (warning them that there would be sanctions coming soon), and after alllll that, he only fired him once his conversation about sanctions got leaked to the press ... and even once he fired him, still defended him, said he was a great guy, and did nothing wrong.
    • A tape was released of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy saying a hilarious "joke" that Putin pays Trump, then when everyone laughed swearing to god that it's true, then Paul Ryan stops the conversation immediately and swears everyone to secrecy.
    • It was revealed that Trump's team had 18 contacts with Russian officials. Not only is this an inordinate number in-and-of-itself, not only does this contradict the White House's insistence that they did not make contact with Russians during the election, but it is especially alarming that the topic of some of these conversations was how to set up secret by-channels of communication once Trump is in office to bypass US national security.
    • There was also a bevy of subpoenas and such issued to Trump's associates, including Flynn and his associates getting Senate subpoenas, a fundraising HQ of Trump's former campaign manager, Manafort, being raided by the Feds, etc.

    But hey, Obama gave Hillary a vote of confidence once, so no need to really engage with any of these news items.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No one was talking impeachment when Obama went on National TV and said "hillary did nothing wrong" while the DOJ was in the middle of its investigation. That could be considered an obstruction of justice, or at least, an interference in an active investigation.
    Lol, I like how you didn't even do the bare minimum Wikipedia lawyering to actually make a firm assertion here and just kinda trailed off into, Ya know, that might break the same law, or if not break that law then is probably inappropriate in some way or another.

    Comparing giving a vote of confidence for your colleague who's under investigation to outright telling the person leading an investigation to stop investigating a particular element of it, and then later firing that person for how they're handling the investigation at large is like saying putting vegetables in your kids food and lying to them about it is like killing the dog, grinding the meat, and putting it in their food and telling them it's ground beef. They're maybe, if not the same thing, similar-ish kinda if you focus on very specific elements of it.

    Also, are you not wondering why Trump didn't want the FBI to investigate whether his national security advisor (the person with whom he was sharing all the nation's closest secrets) was compromised? Shouldn't he want to know that?! Forget whether this was obstruction of justice; even if we give this story its most charitable interpretation (that Trump wasn't trying to hide anything from the FBI), it's still inexcusable negligence to have such little care for whether his national security advisor is sharing his secrets with foreign adversaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are democrats really going to claim the high ground when it comes to leaking of classified material? They're really gonna sit in Hillary's corner, Manning's corner, and Snowden's corner while simultaneously pointing the finger at trump?
    Hillary didn't leak classified information. She used a personal device to check and send work email that included classified information.

    Manning was convicted and held in military prison for seven years by Obama's administration. The sentence was lambasted for being cruel and unjust.

    Snowden had to be extradited from the US to avoid feeling the wrath of Obama's administration for his leaks.

    Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about that Dems are in their corner?! I thought the meme was "Obama ran on 'most transparent presidency ever' and then brings the wrath of god on whistleblowers and leakers, LOL."

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are people in the UK dumb enough to buy into that?
    Says the guy who thinks Obama and Snowden are racquetball buddies ...
  17. #6542
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    So Trump possibly breaking the law is no biggie but Comey not reporting on that is serious. I can't even.
    You obviously missed the point. BOTH would be very serious crimes. But you can't have one without the other. Comey's inaction PROVES Trump's innocence.

    Yet if you turn on CNN, they act like they've got a smoking gun
  18. #6543
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    Let me recap for you then:
    Oh boy, this should be good.

    [*]Trump fired the FBI Director who was leading the Russia-Trump investigation for a reason that no one bought in the first place (because he was unfair to Trump's political opponent 6 months ago), and then in an interview made it quite clear that it was actually all about how the Director was running the Russia-Trump investigation.
    Employee does bad job; boss fires employee. What about this is newsworthy? You don't think it's a little dubious how the Dems have been railing against Comey since October, and now that he got fired by Trump, he's suddenly a saint??

    [*]That person then gave his friends the go ahead to share information he'd been keeping close to the vest about his then-boss (Trump), including that Trump had invited him to dinner shortly after his inauguration to twice ask for a vow of loyalty from him and that Trump had told him to stop investigating Flynn's connections with Russia.
    If Trump did something illegal, then keeping that info "close to the vest" is very much illegal also. The fact that Comey didn't expose this at the time, proves that there is no story here.

    [*]Meanwhile, Trump held a meeting with Russian officials, including Kislyak (who was the one who discussed sanctions with Flynn which got him fired, and who had multiple meetings at the RNC with Sessions that forced him to recuse himself from the investigation), and forbade US media to cover it, but did allow Russian propaganda to attend.
    So? From what I understand this Kislyak is a real 'man about town' in Washington DC. I'm really not moved by any account of who he met with when. That's his job.

    [*]It was then revealed that during this meeting, Trump shared with Russians a piece of intelligence that had the highest grade of classification and that Israeli intelligence shared with select US officials in confidence. He shared several details, including where the operative collected this information, making it very easy to trace back the source. Several international sources have since voiced concerns about sharing confidential information with US intelligence while Trump is in the White House.
    You seem to have an awful lot of information here. All of what you're saying is being claimed by people who have no evidence, or documentation to prove it. And it's totally refuted by everyone who was in the room at the time.

    [*]A special counsel was appointed to run the Russia-Trump investigation impartially.
    No surprise there. Call me if they find any evidence. Like, even a itsy bitsy little morsel of evidence.

    [*]It was revealed that before Trump selected Flynn for national security advisor (which receives the highest security clearance in the land), Trump's transition team was notified that Flynn was under investigation for having contracts with foreign political leaders, including a contract to lobby in the US on behalf of Turkey's president, Erdogan (FWIW, Erdogan is the fella making news this week for sicking his goons on US citizens holding a protest on US soil). This means that Trump was informed that Flynn was under investigation for working on behalf of foreign powers before selecting him in the first place, he was warned by then-Attorney General Yates that Russia could very well have blackmail on Flynn that compromises his position before inauguration, and *then* was informed that he had illegally discussed confidential information with a Russian diplomat (warning them that there would be sanctions coming soon), and after alllll that, he only fired him once his conversation about sanctions got leaked to the press ... and even once he fired him, still defended him, said he was a great guy, and did nothing wrong.
    So you think Trump made a bad hire. Ok, fine. If you want him held accountable for it, the next election is in 2020.

    [*]A tape was released of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy saying a hilarious "joke" that Putin pays Trump, then when everyone laughed swearing to god that it's true, then Paul Ryan stops the conversation immediately and swears everyone to secrecy.
    I'm not sure what you're implying here. That McCarthy wasn't joking? How much tinfoil are you wearing?

    [*]It was revealed that Trump's team had 18 contacts with Russian officials. Not only is this an inordinate number in-and-of-itself, not only does this contradict the White House's insistence that they did not make contact with Russians during the election, but it is especially alarming that the topic of some of these conversations was how to set up secret by-channels of communication once Trump is in office to bypass US national security.
    Who says 18 is inordinate? How many is ordinate? This is actually really old news. And the things you find "alarming" about all this are pretty contrived. back-channel conversations are a common part of international diplomacy. And with the deep state bent on leaking all kinds of sensitive national security information, it seems that the most prudent play would be to go around them. That actually PROTECTS national security, not hurts it.

    [*]There was also a bevy of subpoenas and such issued to Trump's associates, including Flynn and his associates getting Senate subpoenas, a fundraising HQ of Trump's former campaign manager, Manafort, being raided by the Feds, etc.[/LIST]
    Of course there are subpoenas. There's an active investigation. Duh! When those subpoenas produce incriminating testimony, or lead to any tiny kernel of evidence of collusion, then let me know. Until then, maybe take off the foil hat once in a while..

    But hey, Obama gave Hillary a vote of confidence once, so no need to really engage with any of these news items.
    That's not what I said at all dick head. I was referring directly to the assertion that Trump's statements to Comey represent a smoking gun. If you're Comey, investigating Hillary, and your boss goes on TV and says she's innocent.....doesn't that kind of undermine your investigation? Doesn't that suggest that your boss wants a certain outcome. Doesn't that imply that 'doing a good job' means reaching the same conclusion as your boss. Does that sound like the proper way to get justice??

    From everything I've heard and read, Trump's comments to Comey were merely an expression of impatience. His statements could easily be interpreted as a directive to finish the investigation in the most efficient manner possible, so that it can stop being a distraction. Whatever quotes or hearsay that's been presented do not contain any specific directive toward a specific finding.

    What Obama did was entirely different, and MUCH closer to Obstruction of Justice than anything Trump said. And again, if what Trump said was bad, you would have heard about it BEFORE Comey was fired.

    Comparing giving a vote of confidence for your colleague who's under investigation to outright telling the person leading an investigation to stop investigating a particular element of it, and then later firing that person for how they're handling the investigation at large is like saying putting vegetables in your kids food and lying to them about it is like killing the dog, grinding the meat, and putting it in their food and telling them it's ground beef. They're maybe, if not the same thing, similar-ish kinda if you focus on very specific elements of it.
    No, see above. You can't write it off as a "vote of confidence".

    Also, are you not wondering why Trump didn't want the FBI to investigate whether his national security advisor (the person with whom he was sharing all the nation's closest secrets) was compromised? Shouldn't he want to know that?!
    Absolutely he should want to know that. Have you been paying attention at all? I'm only half tuned in and I'm quite sure I've heard a deluge of complaints from the whitehouse about improper unmasking, and leaks.

    Also, we know how he was compromised. It was Susan Rice dummy!

    Forget whether this was obstruction of justice; even if we give this story its most charitable interpretation (that Trump wasn't trying to hide anything from the FBI), it's still inexcusable negligence to have such little care for whether his national security advisor is sharing his secrets with foreign adversaries.
    This statement is heavily spun. I think it's obvious that Trump does care about what Flynn was doing, which is why Flynn doesn't have a job. And again, if you don't like how he runs the ship....elections are in 2020.

    Hillary didn't leak classified information. She used a personal device to check and send work email that included classified information.
    So? We're splitting hairs now. If you're the head of the state department, you take care of classified info. Period. If you don't. Fuck you.

    Manning was convicted and held in military prison for seven years by Obama's administration. The sentence was lambasted for being cruel and unjust.
    It's not cruel and unjust. Manning revealed very sensitive information that put lives of US operatives at risk.

    Snowden had to be extradited from the US to avoid feeling the wrath of Obama's administration for his leaks.
    I never specified that Obama was friendly with Snowden. Democrats in general though, seem to wholly support what he did.

    Says the guy who thinks Obama and Snowden are racquetball buddies ...
    Never said that. Fuck you
  19. #6544
    surviva316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,750
    Location
    Tough when Wet
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It seems pretty obvious and transparent that Comey's only complaining now (through anonymous sources) 'cause he got fired. Waaaaaaaaa
    1) It's obvious so long as you're reading the news so half-assedly that you don't realize that it directly contradicts the timeline. Comey told his friends about these conversations.

    2) Comey would have had to falsify documentation for your "obvious" narrative to make sense, so he's a criminal one way or another. ... or, he's just telling the truth.

    3) I love your persistence in citing incidences of obstruction of justice while having no idea what you're talking about. Ah yes, that old statute that the FBI Director must be sent to jail if he doesn't immediately throw the book at the POTUS the second he has any damning evidence in a much larger investigation.

    It's like how when the IRS are investigating a drug pin to build a massive RICO case, they must immediately break down the door the second they find an improperly filed dry cleaning receipt or else they'd be obstructing justice.

    4) These tortures syllogisms to make confident speculations about situations that are entirely unprecedented have aged poorly in this thread. Just look back at the post-Comey letter assertions that Clinton is obviously nailed because why else would Comey write the letter or the speculations on Clinton's health back in September. They've all aged poorly not least of all because they're desperate and poorly thought through with the most oblique intersections with reality.
  20. #6545
    1) It's obvious so long as you're reading the news so half-assedly that you don't realize that it directly contradicts the timeline. Comey told his friends about these conversations.
    So what if he told his friends? That doesn't mean it's a crime? If it was a crime, he would have told the Attorney General.

    2) Comey would have had to falsify documentation for your "obvious" narrative to make sense, so he's a criminal one way or another. ... or, he's just telling the truth.
    What documentation? Also, is it possible that he's 'just telling the truth' and also that the 'truth' is not a crime? Can your libtard Trump-hating brain comprehend the notion that sometimes conversations are just conversations?

    3) I love your persistence in citing incidences of obstruction of justice while having no idea what you're talking about. Ah yes, that old statute that the FBI Director must be sent to jail if he doesn't immediately throw the book at the POTUS the second he has any damning evidence in a much larger investigation.
    you're a fucking retard man. The two would be entirely separate. If Trump obstructed justice, then citing him for that wouldn't affect the Flynn investigation at all. Comey can keep investigating Flynn while also prosecuting Trump for committing a subsequent crime.

    It's like how when the IRS are investigating a drug pin to build a massive RICO case, they must immediately break down the door the second they find an improperly filed dry cleaning receipt or else they'd be obstructing justice.
    First of all, the IRS is not a law enforcement agency. You can file a tax return saying you made all your money playing online poker (illegal in the US), and they won't say a word about it. Technically, that's how it is supposed to work. However, I'm sure the IRS tips off the FBI from time to time. Not seeing how any of that is relevant though.

    When it comes to actual law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, they are required to take action when crimes are committed. The DOJ can exercise prosecutorial discretion if they feel that moving too soon compromises a larger conviction. However, there isn't a single turd of evidence linking Trump to anything illegal. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Comey would just pass on an obstruction charge so he could keep digging for the holy grail Putin connection that probably doesn't exist (don't you think we'd know by now).

    4) These tortures syllogisms to make confident speculations about situations that are entirely unprecedented have aged poorly in this thread. Just look back at the post-Comey letter assertions that Clinton is obviously nailed because why else would Comey write the letter or the speculations on Clinton's health back in September. They've all aged poorly not least of all because they're desperate and poorly thought through with the most oblique intersections with reality
    This is the douchiest paragraph I've read on this forum this year.
  21. #6546
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,359
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You obviously missed the point. BOTH would be very serious crimes. But you can't have one without the other. Comey's inaction PROVES Trump's innocence.
    I was talking about your reactions.
    "Trump guilty of a crime? Nah, bullshit, and even if so what?"
    "Comey guilty of something? Serious trouble. You can't do that."

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yet if you turn on CNN, they act like they've got a smoking gun
    Yet if you turn on FOX, they act like nothing ever happened.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  22. #6547
    surviva316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,750
    Location
    Tough when Wet
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Oh boy, this should be good.
    Before going through this, let me point out that we are discussing Trump having a nightmare week. I posted an insane list of negative headlines, and your defense for many of them was just "not impeachable" or "but Obama." I never used the word "impeach" and only used "illegal" in reference to Flynn. Only in Trump's America do we argue that a week wasn't bad just because none of the news items taken individually are definitely impeachable. Remember all those times people said, "All the complaints about the ACA are invalid because raising insurance premiums isn't illegal"? Me neither.

    On a similar note, whataboutism is such a lame defense because it's not a defense at all. If all the very worst things that every Democrat ever did all happened to one politician all in one week, it would be a nightmare week. Remember all those times people said, "I'm totally fine with Obama's administration spying on me because, after all, it was the Bush administration that passed the PATRIOT Act"? Actually, someone has probably argued some variant of that, but rest assured, they're idiots and you shouldn't mimic them.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Employee does bad job; boss fires employee. What about this is newsworthy? You don't think it's a little dubious how the Dems have been railing against Comey since October, and now that he got fired by Trump, he's suddenly a saint??
    If Trump had made any indications whatsoever from Nov. 8th to Jan 20th, or most especially, from in January, February, or hell I'll even spot you March that he was looking into the grave misconduct of Comey's letter, we very well might have bought it. How long does it take to investigate a 3-paragraph letter?!

    The fact that Trump was all-of-the-sudden, out-of-the-blue miffed about how Clinton was treated half a year later, just when the Russia investigation was ramping up, didn't pass the smell test. But put the smell test aside: Trump came out and said that he fired Comey for making a big fuss about the Russia investigation. So ...

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If Trump did something illegal, then keeping that info "close to the vest" is very much illegal also. The fact that Comey didn't expose this at the time, proves that there is no story here.
    1) As I referenced above, the law you're citing was scribed and passed through the bicameral recesses of your brain and is enforced nowhere in reality.

    2) Even if your logic is valid, you are only proving that Trump did nothing expressly illegal. Can we both agree that what he did was highly inappropriate and questions the integrity of the investigation to a grave degree?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So? From what I understand this Kislyak is a real 'man about town' in Washington DC. I'm really not moved by any account of who he met with when. That's his job.
    Here's the thing about taking my bullet points one at a time. Barring US media from the meeting was bad optics. It's what resulted from it that was the bombshell.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You seem to have an awful lot of information here. All of what you're saying is being claimed by people who have no evidence, or documentation to prove it. And it's totally refuted by everyone who was in the room at the time.
    1) This conversation all rests on news reports. If you disregard the sources and reports of every major news outlet, then there's no such thing as bad news, so there's no point in having this lengthy argument. Just whenever anyone says, "There was a lot of bad news for Trump this week," just get the whole thing over with by saying up front, There's no such thing as news.

    2) Trump himself defended his decision to divulge intelligence to Russia. Damn Trump always getting in the way of the WH's official line.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No surprise there. Call me if they find any evidence. Like, even a itsy bitsy little morsel of evidence.
    I agree this isn't explicitly bad news for Trump. It is, however, huge news.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So you think Trump made a bad hire. Ok, fine. If you want him held accountable for it, the next election is in 2020.
    You realize this is scoring a point in my favor, right? Just saying, Sure he sucks, but it's not immediately impeachable, so you can't do anything about it for 3 years is not a defense of a politician's actions. It's juvenile sports trash talk.

    And again, this is the best possible interpretation of what he did: that he was almost criminally negligent in selecting and defending his national security advisor. There are potentially far worse implications of why he was so defensive of Flynn's connections and actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm not sure what you're implying here.
    It's a bad look to have one of the top five leaders of your party "swear to god" that you're paid by a foreign adversary, and then to have a top three leader in your party interject to tell everyone to shut up and keep the conversation a blood secret. Obviously I don't think it's smoking gun evidence; again, it's a matter of perspective on how bad something has to look before you call it a nightmare week.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How much tinfoil are you wearing?
    And you realize the FBI is leading a major investigation into this exact subject of whether or not this is happening, right? Do you plan on taking a trip down to DC and walk around telling all of the top intelligence officials there that they're wearing tinfoil hats?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Who says 18 is inordinate?
    “It’s rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power,” Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is actually really old news.
    How old do you think this news is? Do you think it predates just a couple of months ago when the WH's official line is that they did not make contact with Russia during the election?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And the things you find "alarming" about all this are pretty contrived. back-channel conversations are a common part of international diplomacy.
    From your country's *own* security armature? You can't just drop a line like that and provide no support for it. If my recollection of college history is correct (it might not be), I believe the WH establishing back-channel communications were considered alarming in the Iran-Contra scandal.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And with the deep state bent on leaking all kinds of sensitive national security information, it seems that the most prudent play would be to go around them. That actually PROTECTS national security, not hurts it.
    That's a doozy I'm not sure how to approach.

    [QUOTE=BananaStand;2277228]
    Of course there are subpoenas. There's an active investigation. Duh! When those subpoenas produce incriminating testimony, or lead to any tiny kernel of evidence of collusion, then let me know. Until then, maybe take off the foil hat once in a while../QUOTE]

    I mean, it's the first thing anything like this has happened since the Plame affair a decade and a half ago, but again, major scandals aren't a big deal when talking about Trump's administration. Yawn. Call me when there's a smoking gun that he broke the highest laws in the land.

    Also, I didn't say anything about collusion. Is it not massive news that Trump's former campaign manager's fundraising HQ is being investigated by the FBI? There's a number of ways that could be a big deal. I will, of course, wait to see what comes of all of it, but this is a huge deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If you're Comey, investigating Hillary, and your boss goes on TV and says she's innocent.....doesn't that kind of undermine your investigation? Doesn't that suggest that your boss wants a certain outcome. Doesn't that imply that 'doing a good job' means reaching the same conclusion as your boss. Does that sound like the proper way to get justice??
    You can argue it's inappropriate all you want, but it doesn't dismiss what Trump did, both because someone else doing something bad is irrelevant to whether this is bad, and because what Trump did was a much bigger deal. If saying, "She didn't do it," influences the subordinate's investigation, then how much do you think saying, "Don't investigate this at all," influences it?

    I've been noticing this trend a lot: conservative media thinks something Obama's administration does is the worst thing anyone has ever done, Trump comes into office and does something spectacularly worse, and then conservative media--instead of holding him to the same standard--bitches and moans about there being a double standard to be both try and prove that what they had said before was appropriate AND gloss over the much worse thing that is currently going on. After tan-suit-gate, I'm waiting for Trump to show up in Saudi Arabia in cutoff jeans and a Slayer t-shirt, and for Fox News to be like, "Oh, so when Obama wears a tan suit, MSM acts like it's not big deal, but now suddenly what you wear to meetings matters?!"

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    From everything I've heard and read, Trump's comments to Comey were merely an expression of impatience. His statements could easily be interpreted as a directive to finish the investigation in the most efficient manner possible, so that it can stop being a distraction. Whatever quotes or hearsay that's been presented do not contain any specific directive toward a specific finding.
    You haven't heard or read much. The quotes have little to do with finishing anything in an efficient manner: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

    And an FBI's agent contemporaneous notes of conversations isn't "hearsay."

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And again, if what Trump said was bad, you would have heard about it BEFORE Comey was fired.
    According to the procedures of the FBI that you made up in your head. You speak very confidently about things that you know very little about. That isn't to say I'm an expert on any of this, but 1) I don't assert logic like x is definitely the case because the FBI operates like y, and 2) I at least do some Google Fu before opening my mouth rather than bragging about how half-tuned-in I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Absolutely he should want to know that. Have you been paying attention at all? I'm only half tuned in and I'm quite sure I've heard a deluge of complaints from the whitehouse about improper unmasking, and leaks.

    Also, we know how he was compromised. It was Susan Rice dummy!
    You misunderstand what I mean about Flynn potentially being "compromised." I mean that he had conflicts of interest with foreign powers and that he was sharing US secrets with Russian officials. Whether or not he was "compromised" by the unmasking process of NSA is another discussion, and even Republicans have backed off on that story holding any water. Flynn was unmasked because (shocker) he was doing illegal shit, and when US citizens are caught doing illegal shit in the course of incidental intelligence collection, their name gets revealed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This statement is heavily spun. I think it's obvious that Trump does care about what Flynn was doing, which is why Flynn doesn't have a job.
    Flynn didn't lose his job until weeks after the WH was informed of what he had done. They didn't fire him until the press caught wind of it, and *even then* the president himself continued to defend Flynn's actions, showing zero remorse whatsoever for what was done. So no, I don't think he did care. I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive, but you're yet to address this.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So? We're splitting hairs now. If you're the head of the state department, you take care of classified info. Period.
    If the discussion is, "Is mishandling classified information bad," then this "Period" is appropriate. It's bad. That's that. Not much more to it.

    If the discussion is, "Can handling classified information on a private device be compared to straight up telling a foreign adversary highly classified information," then that's not end-of-discussion. Because one of those is immensely worse than the other. Also, if the discussion is, "Did Clinton leak classified information," then there would be more to it than what you say.

    Not everything is the same all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I never specified that Obama was friendly with Snowden. Democrats in general though, seem to wholly support what he did.
    Putting aside the extremely semantically sticky issue of referring to "Democrats" but implicitly excluding democratic politicians, the comparison has no legs to begin with. Whistleblowing on the government over actions that you disagree with by leaking classified information to the press (who then edits out any information that they believe compromises immediately sensitive information like military positions) is not the same as sharing sensitive information with a foreign adversary for seemingly no reason other than to brag about your access to classified information. This is why "double standard" is the most over-cited fallacies in the book: it is absolutely not logically self-defeating to believe the former is okay (which I don't necessarily believe, FWIW) while thinking the latter is bad.
  23. #6548
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I was talking about your reactions.
    "Trump guilty of a crime? Nah, bullshit, and even if so what?"
    Fake news. When did I say any of that

    "Comey guilty of something? Serious trouble. You can't do that."
    More alternative facts!!

    My reaction to this whole mess is to roll my eyes and say "here we go again". I'm not asserting at all that there should be different reactions to crimes committed by either Trump, or Comey. I'm merely stating that either they're BOTH innocent, or BOTH guilty.

    What I find dubious, and somewhat frustrating, is the democrats and the media want to insist that Comey is OK, and Trump is guilty. Which is actually the same thing, just inverted, as what you're accusing me of. If you ever get your fucking facts straight, we might actually agree on this.

    Yet if you turn on FOX, they act like nothing ever happened. report just the facts
    Fixed your post. Fox is still #1, they don't have to resort to desperate sensationalist tactics in order to secure ratings. It makes sense that the FOX network would be devoid of the kind of imaginative, partisan, hate-filled storytelling that you're looking for. If you're the type of person who just enjoys being entertained by ridiculous conspiracy theories, or speculative illogical garbage from anonymous sources, then FOX is not for you. Different strokes kid
  24. #6549
    surviva316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,750
    Location
    Tough when Wet
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So what if he told his friends? That doesn't mean it's a crime? If it was a crime, he would have told the Attorney General.
    The fact that he shared the story back before he was fired doesn't prove it was a crime. It proves that he's not just complaining now that he just got fired. Your "obvious and transparent" narrative doesn't match the plain timeline of events.

    Not every paragraph, sentence, phrase, word, syllable, and phoneme taken in a vacuum proves anything. Like, for example, this paragraph does nothing to prove that Trump committed a crime. How language works is that phonemes, syllables, words, etc are strung together to, in aggregate, prove larger points.

    Also, my ultimate point isn't dependent on Trump committing any crimes, much less a crime for each bullet point.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What documentation?
    Hey, more proud ignorance: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=comey+documentation+trump

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Also, is it possible that he's 'just telling the truth' and also that the 'truth' is not a crime? Can your libtard Trump-hating brain comprehend the notion that sometimes conversations are just conversations?
    Yes. I never asserted it was a crime. It might be a crime, and at the very least, it's very very bad--one of many very bad things to happen in just one week.

    I guess in this way we could stop calling each other a fuckface and recognize that there's some middle ground here that what Trump did was terrible though not necessarily on its own impeachable.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    you're a fucking retard man. The two would be entirely separate. If Trump obstructed justice, then citing him for that wouldn't affect the Flynn investigation at all. Comey can keep investigating Flynn while also prosecuting Trump for committing a subsequent crime.
    I don't know how this rant is relevant to my point. You said that witnessing an instance of obstruction of justice and sharing that instance with colleagues and noting it but not immediately prosecuting the person for that crime would be "a very serious crime." I said no such crime exists. For one, you have no idea who he shared this information with. You imply that you know that he didn't share it with then-AG Yates. How do you know.

    All we know is that he didn't make the memo public until now, and there's any number of reasons he didn't do that (to not alarm the American people about the integrity of the government; to try to make nice to his boss while his face and not come at the king until he knows he won't miss; to save resources for the much more massive investigation that was going on and save this one for his back pocket if they couldn't come up with anything better; to not let on to Trump how closely they're watching his actions, maybe even waiting for a worse or more overt form of obstruction, including maybe even firing Comey for not abiding which might have been the trigger of this very news item; etc). That entire parenthetical list is just a mass of useless speculation that escalates things further than I'm comfortable asserting just for the sake of offering alternatives. The point is that it's not a very serious crime for the FBI Director to not immediately press charges against someone he's investigating, so the chain of events doesn't necessarily mean what you assert.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    First of all, the IRS is not a law enforcement agency.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+the+irs+a+la...rcement+agency

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You can file a tax return saying you made all your money playing online poker (illegal in the US),
    It's not illegal to play online poker in the US. The only thing the UIGEA did was place legal culpability on banks for handling gambling-related actions that are found to be illegal. (So, for example, if a poker site accepts money from a 19 year old to play poker because the legal gambling age is 18 in Europe, then any bank who handled any transaction that allowed that 19 year old to gamble in the US would face criminal charges). This made no banks want to handle online gambling transactions, which made the poker sites have to defraud the banks into thinking they weren't gambling sites, and obviously *that* was illegal.

    But this is a common misconception, so I won't call you an ignorant buffoon for this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ... and they won't say a word about it. Technically, that's how it is supposed to work.
    Lol whaaaaaaatttt?!?!?! This isn't even relevant because I wasn't referencing the IRS' own law enforcement department and it was only for the sake of an analogy, but let me just take this second to say, lol wtf? The IRS absolutely reports you if you claim illegal sources of income.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    When it comes to actual law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, they are required to take action when crimes are committed. The DOJ can exercise prosecutorial discretion if they feel that moving too soon compromises a larger conviction. However, there isn't a single turd of evidence linking Trump to anything illegal. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Comey would just pass on an obstruction charge so he could keep digging for the holy grail Putin connection that probably doesn't exist (don't you think we'd know by now).
    Again, not sure if you've heard, but the FBI is undergoing a much larger investigation into the Trump administration. I don't think they're doing it because it's a good source of calcium. I think they're actually treating it quite seriously.

    And why would I think we would know by now? Can you name an investigation of this scope that took less than a year to complete? Since we're talking about online poker, the Black Friday investigation took much longer, and that was just a bank fraud investigation into some gambling companies. It took two years to get Nixon, and that investigation wasn't nearly as far-reaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is the douchiest paragraph I've read on this forum this year.
    Okay. Just saying that even the anecdotal evidence shows poor support for these sorts of "logic"-based speculations.
    Last edited by surviva316; 05-18-2017 at 01:37 PM.
  25. #6550
    Before going through this, let me point out that we are discussing Trump having a nightmare week.
    By whose standards

    I posted an insane list of negative exaggerated and out-of-context headlines
    Fixed your post.

    and your defense for many of them was just "not impeachable" or "but Obama."
    Illustrating a double standard, denouncing hypocrisy, and calling out 'manufactured' outrage is not the same thing as a "defense"

    If Trump had made any indications whatsoever from Nov. 8th to Jan 20th, or most especially, from in January, February, or hell I'll even spot you March that he was looking into the grave misconduct of Comey's letter, we very well might have bought it. How long does it take to investigate a 3-paragraph letter?!
    I don't know. There are ZERO paragraphs of anything connecting Trump to Putin. And that investigation has been going on for over a year. Maybe Trump is a genius for closing this one out so fast! In any event, I really don't care what the official statement is in regards to why Comey was fired. Trump is the president, and he can hire and fire who he wants.

    If your'e going to impugn Trump for firing Comey for nefarious reasons, then cite some evidence. Or, if you just want to believe that Comey was fired for illegal, or even unethical reasons without a shred or inkling of proof, then fine, be stupid.

    1) As I referenced above, the law you're citing was scribed and passed through the bicameral recesses of your brain and is enforced nowhere in reality.
    (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) Look it up fuck face.

    2) Even if your logic is valid, you are only proving that Trump did nothing expressly illegal. Can we both agree that what he did was highly inappropriate and questions the integrity of the investigation to a grave degree?
    Maybe. I'm not gonna get riled up though every time a politician says something fuzzy. I'm not even mad about Obama's statements regarding Hillary. What I am mad about is that the same people (e.g. YOU) who dismiss Obama's statements as innocuous are all running around with their hair on fire over Trump.

    Here's the thing about taking my bullet points one at a time. Barring US media from the meeting was bad optics. It's what resulted from it that was the bombshell.
    Seems that it's only a bombshell to Trump haters.

    1) This conversation all rests on news reports. If you disregard the sources and reports of every major news outlet, then there's no such thing as bad news, so there's no point in having this lengthy argument. Just whenever anyone says, "There was a lot of bad news for Trump this week," just get the whole thing over with by saying up front, There's no such thing as news.
    You're being a real dick here. Some news reports say that something was leaked. Other news reports, which are backed by NAMED SOURCES WHO WERE IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME, refute those news reports. Consumers of information have to choose which news sources to believe. On one hand, there are heavily biased media outlets with a clear agenda citing anonymous sources and speculation. On the other hand, are facts. Believe whatever you want.

    2) Trump himself defended his decision to divulge intelligence to Russia. Damn Trump always getting in the way of the WH's official line.
    It was never in question whether the intelligence was shared. Everyone agrees that it was. Where there is disagreement is whether the information was sensitive and classified, and clearly it wasn't.

    I agree this isn't explicitly bad news for Trump. It is, however, huge news.
    Not really. It seems like the logical outcome after every media outlet and political activist group in the country has bolstered an entirely fabricated narrative about a Putin-Trump connection. By doing so, they've manufactured questions in the public's mind. Whether those questoins are manufactured or not, they must be answered. If there is any fainding in this whatsoever other than "Trump's clear", THEN that would be huge news. Until then, all we have is a dusted off DOJ antique who decided that retirement sucks.

    You realize this is scoring a point in my favor, right? Just saying, Sure he sucks, but it's not immediately impeachable, so you can't do anything about it for 3 years is not a defense of a politician's actions. It's juvenile sports trash talk.
    That's not what I'm saying at all shitbrain. If Trump made a mistake, or a bad decision, so what? Fine, put a blemish on his scorecard. And if he accumulates too many blemishes for your taste, then don't vote form him. End of story. But you seem to be asserting A) That only an unblemished scorecard should ever be allowed to be president, unless it's a democrat, in which case, mistakes happen. And B) This was more than a mistake. You're saying that Trump was at least grossly negligent, and at worst a nefarious Russian conspirator.

    And again, this is the best possible interpretation of what he did: that he was almost criminally negligent in selecting and defending his national security advisor. There are potentially far worse implications of why he was so defensive of Flynn's connections and actions.
    See, you're forming your opinion of Trump based entirely on speculation. You're saying that if it's PLAUSIBLE that something bad happened, then we have to assume the worst until he can disprove it. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty fuck face.

    It's a bad look to have one of the top five leaders of your party "swear to god" that you're paid by a foreign adversary, and then to have a top three leader in your party interject to tell everyone to shut up and keep the conversation a blood secret. Obviously I don't think it's smoking gun evidence; again, it's a matter of perspective on how bad something has to look before you call it a nightmare week.
    Has it occurred to you that it really was just a joke? Do you really believe that all these people are keeping nefarious secrets like this and discussing it during a conversation they know is being taped? Has it occurred to you that a perfectly normal week can be spun into a 'nightmare' when simple topical humor is taken out of context and presented as evidence of an evil conspiracy?

    And you realize the FBI is leading a major investigation into this exact subject of whether or not this is happening, right? Do you plan on taking a trip down to DC and walk around telling all of the top intelligence officials there that they're wearing tinfoil hats?
    Whether or not what's happening?

    “It’s rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power,” Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters.
    You still don't even know what those phone calls were about. There's not even any proof that they were related at all to the campaign. Also, numerous officials other than Mr. Armitage have claimed that it IS entirely appropriate for campaign staff to have contacts with foreign entities and diplomats.

    How old do you think this news is? Do you think it predates just a couple of months ago when the WH's official line is that they did not make contact with Russia during the election?
    What "official line" are you citing? I don't remember exactly how old this is, but I wanna say I remember the NY times disclosing multiple Russian contacts with at least before the inauguration.

    From your country's *own* security armature? You can't just drop a line like that and provide no support for it. If my recollection of college history is correct (it might not be), I believe the WH establishing back-channel communications were considered alarming in the Iran-Contra scandal.
    You should probably brush up on your Iran Contra stuff. And news flash, the government does ALOT of shit that the public would consider 'alarming'. That doesn't mean it's illegal, wrong, or even unnecessary.

    That's a doozy I'm not sure how to approach.
    Translation: you agree with me.

    I mean, it's the first thing anything like this has happened since the Plame affair a decade and a half ago, but again, major scandals aren't a big deal when talking about Trump's administration. Yawn. Call me when there's a smoking gun that he broke the highest laws in the land.
    That's right, major scandals that are contrived out of nothing, with no evidence, and set forth as part of a partisan agenda to discredit a sitting president that you just happen to find contemptible..... ARE NOT A BIG DEAL.

    Also, I didn't say anything about collusion. Is it not massive news that Trump's former campaign manager's fundraising HQ is being investigated by the FBI? There's a number of ways that could be a big deal. I will, of course, wait to see what comes of all of it, but this is a huge deal.
    Manafort was campaign manager for like....two days, all before Trump was even the nominee. If Manafort did something bad, then I hope he's brought to Justice. But I don't see how Trump becomes culpable for any of that just because he worked with Manafort for a couple of weeks. That's like saying Leslie Nielson should be investigated for Nicole Brown's murder because one time, he was in a movie with OJ.

    You can argue it's inappropriate all you want, but it doesn't dismiss what Trump did, both because someone else doing something bad is irrelevant to whether this is bad, and because what Trump did was a much bigger deal. If saying, "She didn't do it," influences the subordinate's investigation, then how much do you think saying, "Don't investigate this at all," influences it?
    That's not what Trump said you idiot!! You're making up quotes. Also, there is a lot of wiggle room in Trump's statements to conclude that they were vague, ambiguous, or hyperbolic. These seem like totally logical conclusions given the person making the statements. On the other hand, a sitting president giving a press conference on national television and making definitive statements of guilt and innocence has a lot LESS wiggle room for interpretation.

    I've been noticing this trend a lot: conservative media thinks something Obama's administration does is the worst thing anyone has ever done, Trump comes into office and does something spectacularly worse, and then conservative media--instead of holding him to the same standard--bitches and moans about there being a double standard to be both try and prove that what they had said before was appropriate AND gloss over the much worse thing that is currently going on.
    NO butt-licker. You've got it all wrong. The conservative media isn't using a double standard, they are simply calling out the double standard held by the liberal media. They are denouncing the manufactured outrage against Trump. No one in conservative media is saying that Trump's statements to Comey are a geat thing. NO one is going around saying "I wish he said that shit ten more times!"

    Everyone agrees that he shouldn't have said it. The disagreement comes in how strong the response should be. Obama took heat for his comments about HIllary, and he should have. He was wrong, and he shouldn't have done it. He had a "nightmare week" (if thats what you wanna call it). Then the world moved on. However, the double standard comes into play when Trump does something similar, but definitively less bad, and the liberal world WON'T move on after the 'nightmare week'. Instead, if you put on any major news network right now, I will be anything you'll have to wait less than 10 minutes before hearing the word "impeachment".

    After tan-suit-gate, I'm waiting for Trump to show up in Saudi Arabia in cutoff jeans and a Slayer t-shirt, and for Fox News to be like, "Oh, so when Obama wears a tan suit, MSM acts like it's not big deal, but now suddenly what you wear to meetings matters?!"
    I don't even remember this incident. This is entirely new to me, and I watch a lot of FOX. So maybe it really wasn't as big a deal as you're pretending it is. These cable news outlets are on 24 hours a day. They have to fill that time with stuff. So if they end up splitting hairs over suit colors, so be it. Just change the channel if you don't like it. Fox obviously moved on from their suit-color outrage, yet the other side, after over a year, is still claiming, without an inkling of proof, that the election was stolen

    You haven't heard or read much. The quotes have little to do with finishing anything in an efficient manner: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

    Vague, elliptical, ambiguous, could easily be interpreted as "Get this done so it's not a distraction".

    And an FBI's agent contemporaneous notes of conversations isn't "hearsay."
    Fair enough. I agree. So....shouldn't his notes be enough to be a 'smoking gun' then? Courts have upheld FBI agents notes as evidence in the past. Certainly the director of the FBI carries extra credibility. So....that kinda proves Trump's innocence. If what Trump did was illegal, then Comey already has all the evidence he needs to prosecute. He's obligated, under the law, to report it IMMEDIATELY. See the actual laws I cited above. No report = No crime

    According to the procedures of the FBI that you made up in your head. You speak very confidently about things that you know very little about. That isn't to say I'm an expert on any of this, but 1) I don't assert logic like x is definitely the case because the FBI operates like y, and 2) I at least do some Google Fu before opening my mouth rather than bragging about how half-tuned-in I am.
    Here's what Google says
    Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law


    You misunderstand what I mean about Flynn potentially being "compromised." I mean that he had conflicts of interest with foreign powers and that he was sharing US secrets with Russian officials.
    Gross exaggeration.

    Whether or not he was "compromised" by the unmasking process of NSA is another discussion, and even Republicans have backed off on that story holding any water.
    WRONG!!! Pay attention shit-wit. The story was stone-walled by Rice's refusal to testify.

    Flynn was unmasked because (shocker) he was doing illegal shit, and when US citizens are caught doing illegal shit in the course of incidental intelligence collection, their name gets revealed.
    FALSE. Has Flynn been charged with any crime?

    Flynn didn't lose his job until weeks after the WH was informed of what he had done. They didn't fire him until the press caught wind of it, and *even then* the president himself continued to defend Flynn's actions, showing zero remorse whatsoever for what was done. So no, I don't think he did care. I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive, but you're yet to address this.
    Why do I have to address it? You and the President disagree on what's a fireable offense. Take it up with him. Flynn was fired for lying to Pence. Obviously what Flynn does matters to Trump. I don't think Trump is convinced that Flynn's statements to the Russian Ambassador constitute wrongdoing. It's a really flimsy accusation for which there are still no charges.

    If the discussion is, "Can handling classified information on a private device be compared to straight up telling a foreign adversary highly classified information," then that's not end-of-discussion. Because one of those is immensely worse than the other. Also, if the discussion is, "Did Clinton leak classified information," then there would be more to it than what you say.
    The bolded part above is a hyperbolic exaggeration that you're embracing as fact because it fits your narrative. Here in real life, that didn't happen.

    Putting aside the extremely semantically sticky issue of referring to "Democrats" but implicitly excluding democratic politicians,
    Typical liberal point-of-view. "If you're not entirely with us, you're entirely against us". It's that attitude that got Trump elected in the first place. Well played libtards.

    the comparison has no legs to begin with. Whistleblowing on the government over actions that you disagree with by leaking classified information to the press (who then edits out any information that they believe compromises immediately sensitive information like military positions)
    First of all, the press isn't qualified to determine what should, and should not be redacted.

    is not the same as sharing sensitive information with a foreign adversary for seemingly no reason other than to brag about your access to classified information.
    Exactly what classified information are you suggesting was shared? If I recall, the accusations against Flynn stem from pretty ambiguous statements regarding whether or not recent diplomatic sanctions would be reviewed or revised.

    You make it sound like Flynn gave away launch codes or something. Jesus.
  26. #6551
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Fixed your post. Fox is still #1, they don't have to resort to desperate sensationalist tactics in order to secure ratings. It makes sense that the FOX network would be devoid of the kind of imaginative, partisan, hate-filled storytelling that you're looking for. If you're the type of person who just enjoys being entertained by ridiculous conspiracy theories, or speculative illogical garbage from anonymous sources, then FOX is not for you. Different strokes kid
    BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    OMG

    STAAHP!!
  27. #6552
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm getting fed up with the "fuck face," "shithead," and "idiot" comments.
    Internet flaming is strictly against the FTR rules.
    This thread, in particular, seems to be the locus of this activity.

    You are welcome to disagree with each-other (and me, that's cool, too). You are welcome to criticize each-other's (and my own) positions and ideas.
    I will not idly allow FTR to descend into flame wars.

    ***
    I haven't decided how to enforce this, personally, but deleting posts and using temporary bans comes immediately to mind as within my powers / responsibilities as a moderator.
    (That's not a direct warning, but if this keeps up, you will know that I'm not bluffing, here.)

    Both of these are sub-optimal. I enjoy a lively and vibrant discussion where dramatically different viewpoints are presented.
    I am opposed to censorship.... of ideas... however, I will not tolerate abject abuse.

    Please continue the discussion.
  28. #6553
    MMM stops the only activity in about a week

    #FIREMMM
  29. #6554
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    If FTR can't host an interesting discussion between people who have dramatically different perspectives w/o it devolving into a flame war, then I don't want to be a mod here anymore, anyway.

    C'mon, guys.

    "That idea is stupid."
    Totally OK

    "This stinks like horse shit"
    Totally OK



    "You're an idiot"
    Not OK

    "You shithead"
    Not OK


    Basically, if you thought it was a clever insult when you were younger than age 20, you're too old to be using it now.
  30. #6555
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Well, for what it's worth, I don't really give a fuck.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #6556
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,599
    Location
    UK
    As the resident UK stoner Ong, whats your take on Lib Dems policy to raise £1bn from taxing legalised canabis sales. won't you all just grow your own now since it wouldn't be an offence making the tax raising laughable.
  32. #6557
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    As the resident UK stoner Ong, whats your take on Lib Dems policy to raise £1bn from taxing legalised canabis sales. won't you all just grow your own now since it wouldn't be an offence making the tax raising laughable.
    Lib Dems haven't got a chance because they want us back in the EU, so rest easy, it ain't getting legalised yet.

    If it did, I think they would raise significant tax. Sure, I'd grow my own, but then again I have plenty of time on my hands. Lots of other people would also try growing, because people think growing plants is easy, that all you need to do is throw some water in. They would soon realise that it's a science, and leave it to those who can be bothered to do it right.

    Most people who work won't have the time to grow. It will be much simpler for them to buy top quality bud from retailers who can be trusted, held to account, and who pay their tax. Sure, there would still be a black market, but again, the majority of people will be happy to stop buying off their dreadlocked dealer, and instead purchase it off a legitimate business.

    I have no idea if the £1b they're quoting is realistic, though. I think it's better to talk about the money and time that the police and prosecuters will save by not punishing stoners. Although, to be honest, it feels like we're most of the way there already, since many police departments are no longer actively pursuing small time growers and dealers.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 05-19-2017 at 08:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #6558
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    As the resident UK stoner Ong, whats your take on Lib Dems policy to raise £1bn from taxing legalised canabis sales. won't you all just grow your own now since it wouldn't be an offence making the tax raising laughable.
    Quick question: Is weed bought and sold in ounces, or fractions of ounces, in the UK? Or is it all grams and kilos. The difference between a gram of weed and a kilo of weed is humongous. So I'm wondering how you guys handle that without an intermediate unit of measurement.

    Main point: People think it's ironic that I'm against marijuana legalization, even though I myself smoke about an ounce a month. But Keith kinda lays out why legalized marijuana is not the tax-revenue machine that people seem to think it is.

    Despite what Ong says, growing weed isn't a difficult science to master. The main challenge is ventilation and controlling the smell. But if it's legal, that's not really a problem any more. After that, the next most difficult challenge is simulating sunlight, which is really not that hard. I've done it with regular every-day compact fluorescent light bulbs. You know, those spring-y looking things that the hippies want us to use? They grow weed. Hook them up to a $10 electronics timer, and your'e in business.

    After that you have to know how to recognize when the plants need their light cycle changed (convince them it's winter so they grow buds). Then you separate the males from the females, harvest, dry, and smoke. Easy game. Google can teach you all this 'science' in 15 minutes.

    So people grow their own EASILY. And once you have the overhead (i.e. light bulbs) covered, then you can expand pretty easily with minimal effort. For example, it's just as easy to grow two plants as it is to grow one plant. By that same logic, it doesn't take very much more effort to grow twenty plants. So if you're growing, obviously you're going to grow as much as possible.

    Because it has such a short shelf-life, it's unlikely that a single farmer will smoke his whole harvest himself. He's gonna have a lot of extra weed on his hands. I've read stories and articles about kids buying weed for $60 an ounce directly from people who just grow extra. $60 is about 25% of the 'street price' of marijuana. And it's even less compared to the 'government sanctioned price'.

    How can legal weed compete?

    And that's why legalizing marijuana is a pretty shitty idea economically. ONe of the main drivers of the argument for legalization is the therapeutic and medicinal uses for weed. But if alot of people grow their own, or get theirs from someone else who grows their own, then that crushes the demand for 'legalized', government sanctioned, licensed weed dispensaries. As you know, decreased demand equals increased prices. So legalizing marijuana does nothing except create more obstacles and jack up the price for the folks who would see the most benefit from using weed.

    Secondly, as we've seen in Colorado in the USA, the legalized status leads to large scale grow-operations that export product to places where it's NOT legal. In other words, you are creating a place where these criminal enterprises can grow their product without risk. But these people are still rotten, filthy, drug-trafficking criminals. Do you want your neighborhood to be their new hideout? I don't.
  34. #6559
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    People tend to buy eighths and quarters, but some will buy an ounce a month. Also some people buy grams like idiots and end up spending £100+ more per ounce.

    Despite what Ong says, growing weed isn't a difficult science to master.
    It isn't difficult if you have the motivation and time. But it's not easy to get it right if you're investing five minutes a day.

    After that, the next most difficult challenge is simulating sunlight
    Is it? Buying a bulb, shade and ballast is more challenging than getting the nutrients and ph right? There are tons of additives that you can buy, some of them will help boost yield, while others are fleecing the gullible. It's a minefield of products.

    Then there's the medium you're going to use. If you grow in soil, you don't need so many nutrients, but the roots get less oxygen, and you have the risk of bugs. If you grow in coco fibre, you have a neutral medium which holds a lot more oxygen, but the plant requires all the nutrients via another source. If you go full hydroponics, such as deep water culture, then we're getting into lab conditions and "science". You need to understand a lot more about how the plants respond to thermal and ph fluctuations, since there is no buffer between atmosphere and roots. If you can master hydroponics, then you'll get very good results, compared with solid-based media.

    After that you have to know how to recognize when the plants need their light cycle changed
    They can be triggered anytime. When you do it is based on how big you want your plants to be, and your time limitations.

    Then you separate the males from the females
    It's not easy to identify males before it's too late. That's why sometimes you'll buy cheap weed that has seeds in it. Someone didn't spot the dude in time.

    Of course, you can buy feminised seeds ( more expensive), or grow clones from cuttings (more complicated).

    Easy game.
    Right, so that's it? What nutrients are you using? What additives? Any enzymes? What about pest control? How are you controlling the humidity and temperature? What about security? It might be legal now, but it's still valuable, and therefore there is a risk of being robbed. And then there's the risk of mould when it's drying out.

    There is so much to take into account, that it's overwhelming for someone who only intends to invest half an hour a day.

    Yes, nearly anyone can learn these processes, it's not rocket science. But it is science, and is not as simple as people seem to think.

    Because it has such a short shelf-life...
    Huh? Since when does it have a short shelf life? If it's dried and stored properly, it'll last indefinitely. It might "decay" from a high THC product to a high CBN product, but that isn't necessarily a problem, unless you specifically want a high THC product.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #6560
    What you're doing there BS is growing some really shitty weed.

    It's much faster & easier to make your own beer than it is to grow your own weed and yet we see almost no one make their own beer.
  36. #6561
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    What you're doing there BS is growing some really shitty weed.
    Yeah, anyone can grow weed. But not anyway can grow quality weed. If it's good enough for banana's personal stash, fair enough. If he's nailing it and it's high quality, fair enough. But the vast majority of people who invest five minutes a day are going to grow inferior quality weed to what can be bought at retailers.

    That's why lots of people will grow once or twice, then decide it's not worth the hassle when better quality stuff is available legally and easily.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #6562
    surviva316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,750
    Location
    Tough when Wet
    I kinda got burnt on this conversation mid-post. The line-by-line quoting has proliferated to the point that I either have to skip around significantly, repeat myself over and again in the course of one post (what started to happen here, which is what vitiated me), or completely reformulate my thoughts into a cogent, organized thesis, which I really don't feel like doing with the discussion at hand.

    Here is my half-completed, totally un-proofread, scattershot I wrote, for what very little is worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Illustrating a double standard, denouncing hypocrisy, and calling out 'manufactured' outrage is not the same thing as a "defense"
    If I list a bunch of bad news w/r/t Trump from the last week, and you don't have a [scare quotes]defense[scare quotes] for him, then I propose that you agree that he had a shitty week. Pointing out that people are exaggerating the news--even if that's correct--does not mean the news was very very bad for him. Here's the thing: people on both sides of the aisle exaggerate and put spin and do all sorts of other things to every shred of news that comes out of Washington. It's not productive to view news through the lens of how much it differs from the most idiotic Republicans, the most idiotic Democrats, the most idiotic AnCaps, the most idiotic neonazis, the most idiotic communists or anyone else. Instead of wining about manufactured outrage, just tell me exactly how bad these news items are.

    And this is without mentioning yet again that you are misapplying double standard left and right and up and down. A double standard only takes place when two different actions are equal in nature. It's not a double standard for a white guy to only get convicted of assault for kicking a guy in the nuts while a black guy gets convicted of murder for shooting someone in the chest. Pointing out that there was less outrage over Obama saying "Hillary didn't do it" than when Trump told the FBI Director to cease investigating a cabinet member is neither surprising nor meaningful.

    I don't know. There are ZERO paragraphs of anything connecting Trump to Putin. And that investigation has been going on for over a year. Maybe Trump is a genius for closing this one out so fast!
    You're comparing the length of time it takes to conduct both a counter-intelligence and criminal investigation of all conversations, financial transactions, and business relations between any of a dozen men and anyone associated with a large nation-state to the length of time it takes to read a 3-paragraph letter. One of those takes well over a year to conduct thoroughly; the other can be easily done in an exceedingly small fraction of a work day.

    In any event, I really don't care what the official statement is in regards to why Comey was fired. Trump is the president, and he can hire and fire who he wants.
    Running the DOJ is one of the POTUS' responsibilities, so you don't care how he does it. Shouldn't the very fact that it's his responsibility be the reason we hold him accountable for it?

    If your'e going to impugn Trump for firing Comey for nefarious reasons, then cite some evidence. Or, if you just want to believe that Comey was fired for illegal, or even unethical reasons without a shred or inkling of proof, then fine, be stupid.
    The public's opinion of how a politician is running government is not the court of law. You don't need a smoking gun to have "evidence." Circumstantial evidence is plenty for me to find it highly unreasonable to conclude that Trump fired Comey because of a letter he sent 6 months ago. I believe it far more likely that it was because of the escalation of the Russia investigation. This is supported by the president himself who bellyached about how big of a showboat Comey was about Russia.

    (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)
    "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

    You think Comey was concealing a crime?

    Maybe. I'm not gonna get riled up though every time a politician says something fuzzy. I'm not even mad about Obama's statements regarding Hillary. What I am mad about is that the same people (e.g. YOU) who dismiss Obama's statements as innocuous are all running around with their hair on fire over Trump.
    FTR, I'm not yet sure how much of a deal to make out of what Comey has said about Trump.

    I will for the hundredth time point out that telling someone leading an investigation to stop the investigation is a bigger deal than saying to the public, "They didn't do it."

    Seems that it's only a bombshell to Trump haters.
    And, reportedly, to several allied intelligence agencies. I mean, anyone who gets upset about the POTUS divulging information they were told by a close ally in confidence to foreign adversaries who are endorsing an opposing faction in Syria must just have their panties in a wad about all of Trump's winning or something.

    You're being a real dick here. Some news reports say that something was leaked. Other news reports, which are backed by NAMED SOURCES WHO WERE IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME, refute those news reports. Consumers of information have to choose which news sources to believe. On one hand, there are heavily biased media outlets with a clear agenda citing anonymous sources and speculation. On the other hand, are facts. Believe whatever you want.
    People love to throw words like "facts" and "evidence" around however they'd like. Yes, the eye witness report of the very people accused of doing something wrong counts for something, but it's specious for EXCEEDINGLY OBVIOUS REASONS.

    RT was the only media that was there, and while I wouldn't be surprised if you said you trust RT more than NYT, USAToday, WaPo, etc, I would love for you to put that in writing if that's the case.

    Anyway, the point of the quoted bit was just to say, if you don't put any credence in widely reported stories based on anonymous sources, then that's pretty much end of discussion and we're wasting a bunch of words.

    It was never in question whether the intelligence was shared. Everyone agrees that it was. Where there is disagreement is whether the information was sensitive and classified, and clearly it wasn't.
    Wait wait wait, but I just got done arguing with you about "facts" and people being in the room versus people not in the room. If the debate isn't over what was said in the room, should I just go up and delete everything above?

    Whether the information was classified (before Trump declassified it by divulging it) is not up to the opinion of the people in the room. It's up to US officials who seem to clearly be saying that it had the highest classification.

    If Trump made a mistake, or a bad decision, so what? Fine, put a blemish on his scorecard. And if he accumulates too many blemishes for your taste, then don't vote form him. End of story. But you seem to be asserting A) That only an unblemished scorecard should ever be allowed to be president, unless it's a democrat, in which case, mistakes happen. And B) This was more than a mistake. You're saying that Trump was at least grossly negligent, and at worst a nefarious Russian conspirator.
    Your reduction of conversations to airy terminology like "blemish" and "mistake" and "more than a mistake" does this conversation no favors. I think hiring, defending, and keeping on-board someone with the highest security clearances despite all the information was given to Trump is a huge fucking deal. I don't know how this reads on your "more than a mistake"-ometer, and I don't care.

    I agree with your last statement. It is, at best, grossly negligent, and at worst indicative of Trump, in some way or another, being sympathetic to what Flynn was doing.

    See, you're forming your opinion of Trump based entirely on speculation. You're saying that if it's PLAUSIBLE that something bad happened, then we have to assume the worst until he can disprove it. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty fuck face.
    I think it's fair to point out when a story, at its very best, is bad, and at its worst is terrifying. If you're not enough of an adult to read that statement without thinking that means I'm ready to throw Trump in jail without trial, then it's going to be difficult to talk about such heavy matters with you.

    Has it occurred to you that it really was just a joke? Do you really believe that all these people are keeping nefarious secrets like this and discussing it during a conversation they know is being taped? Has it occurred to you that a perfectly normal week can be spun into a 'nightmare' when simple topical humor is taken out of context and presented as evidence of an evil conspiracy?
    It's not taken out of context because the entire context is provided in the transcript.

    It is possible that McCarthy didn't fully have his wits about him (most likely speculating with limited evidence and least likely out-and-out joking), which is why this isn't smoking gun evidence of everything. But you have on tape, a republican leader swearing to god that Putin pays Trump and an even higher republican leader shushing everyone up and swearing them to secrecy on the matter.

    It's also not clear to me that the people speaking know they're being taped and especially that they know that this tape would ever reach the public.

    Whether or not what's happening?
    Trump and/or his associates are or had been conspiring with a foreign adversary.

    You still don't even know what those phone calls were about.
    I'm going by what's reported.

    Also, numerous officials other than Mr. Armitage have claimed that it IS entirely appropriate for campaign staff to have contacts with foreign entities and diplomats.
    Source. Not being snarky, I'd be genuinely interested to get multiple viewpoints on the matter.

    What "official line" are you citing?
    Unfortunately I don't have this bookmarked and it's exceedingly difficult to think up search terms to find it again since things like "Russia," "Trump," "contacts," etc are absolutely buried in newer news.

    I don't remember exactly how old this is, but I wanna say I remember the NY times disclosing multiple Russian contacts with at least before the inauguration.
    Contacts between Russia and Trump's associates have been reported since at least the night before the inauguration, but the number of contacts keeps going up and up, building a circumstantial case and giving more credence to the on-going investigation.


    NO butt-licker. You've got it all wrong. The conservative media isn't using a double standard, they are simply calling out the double standard held by the liberal media. They are denouncing the manufactured outrage against Trump.
    I didn’t say conservative media is using a double standard because, as I’ve mentioned many times, a double standard fallacy couldn’t apply here since all the terms of comparison have been inherently different.

    ***

    Everyone agrees that he shouldn't have said it. The disagreement comes in how strong the response should be. Obama took heat for his comments about HIllary, and he should have. He was wrong, and he shouldn't have done it. He had a "nightmare week" (if thats what you wanna call it). Then the world moved on. However, the double standard comes into play when Trump does something similar, but definitively less bad, and the liberal world WON'T move on after the 'nightmare week'. Instead, if you put on any major news network right now, I will be anything you'll have to wait less than 10 minutes before hearing the word "impeachment".


    I don't even remember this incident. This is entirely new to me, and I watch a lot of FOX. So maybe it really wasn't as big a deal as you're pretending it is. These cable news outlets are on 24 hours a day. They have to fill that time with stuff. So if they end up splitting hairs over suit colors, so be it. Just change the channel if you don't like it. Fox obviously moved on from their suit-color outrage, yet the other side, after over a year, is still claiming, without an inkling of proof, that the election was stolen


    Vague, elliptical, ambiguous, could easily be interpreted as "Get this done so it's not a distraction".


    Fair enough. I agree. So....shouldn't his notes be enough to be a 'smoking gun' then? Courts have upheld FBI agents notes as evidence in the past. Certainly the director of the FBI carries extra credibility. So....that kinda proves Trump's innocence. If what Trump did was illegal, then Comey already has all the evidence he needs to prosecute. He's obligated, under the law, to report it IMMEDIATELY. See the actual laws I cited above. No report = No crime


    Here's what Google says



    Gross exaggeration.


    WRONG!!! Pay attention shit-wit. The story was stone-walled by Rice's refusal to testify.


    FALSE. Has Flynn been charged with any crime?


    Why do I have to address it? You and the President disagree on what's a fireable offense. Take it up with him. Flynn was fired for lying to Pence. Obviously what Flynn does matters to Trump. I don't think Trump is convinced that Flynn's statements to the Russian Ambassador constitute wrongdoing. It's a really flimsy accusation for which there are still no charges.


    The bolded part above is a hyperbolic exaggeration that you're embracing as fact because it fits your narrative. Here in real life, that didn't happen.


    Typical liberal point-of-view. "If you're not entirely with us, you're entirely against us". It's that attitude that got Trump elected in the first place. Well played libtards.


    First of all, the press isn't qualified to determine what should, and should not be redacted.


    Exactly what classified information are you suggesting was shared? If I recall, the accusations against Flynn stem from pretty ambiguous statements regarding whether or not recent diplomatic sanctions would be reviewed or revised.

    You make it sound like Flynn gave away launch codes or something. Jesus.[/QUOTE]
  38. #6563
    ITT I learned the basics of growing weed.
  39. #6564
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    People tend to buy eighths and quarters,
    Ha ha ha fuck you metric system!

    It isn't difficult if you have the motivation and time. But it's not easy to get it right if you're investing five minutes a day.
    It totally is.

    Is it? Buying a bulb, shade and ballast is more challenging than getting the nutrients and ph right?
    Yes

    There are tons of additives that you can buy, some of them will help boost yield, while others are fleecing the gullible. It's a minefield of products.
    So? Trying to "boost yield" beyond what can be produced by any quality brand soil, straight out of the bag, seems unnecessary. Why fuck with teh soil? Just boost yield by growing more plants.

    Then there's the medium you're going to use. If you grow in soil, you don't need so many nutrients, but the roots get less oxygen, and you have the risk of bugs.
    The plant still grows right? Sheesh man. It's not that complicated. The soil is sold in stores, already nutrient-ized. People grow all kinds of shit in that soil and don't sweat about oxygen content or bugs.

    If you grow in coco fibre, you have a neutral medium which holds a lot more oxygen, but the plant requires all the nutrients via another source. If you go full hydroponics, such as deep water culture, then we're getting into lab conditions and "science". You need to understand a lot more about how the plants respond to thermal and ph fluctuations, since there is no buffer between atmosphere and roots. If you can master hydroponics, then you'll get very good results, compared with solid-based media.
    None of this is really relevant if you're just trying to grow weed for personal use. If you're a business, growing for sale to a larger market, then I can see how maybe you might care about this stuff. Mass growing for sale is illegal, so generally speaking, your average pot head can grow his own shit without worrying one iota about any of this stuff. If you're mass growing for sale legally, well then you've got a shit-ton of competition from a black market, as well as burdensome government regulations and taxes. Price is going to be a problem for you. So cutting costs is the next logical step. And to do that, you probably stop giving a shit about your hydroponics apparatus, and just plant seeds in soil like normal people.

    They can be triggered anytime. When you do it is based on how big you want your plants to be, and your time limitations.
    So it's even easier than I originally stated. Great!

    It's not easy to identify males before it's too late.
    yes it is.

    That's why sometimes you'll buy cheap weed that has seeds in it. Someone didn't spot the dude in time.
    Huh? I was under the impression that male plants didn't have seeds. I thought that female plants used their THC to produce seeds, which is why seed-y weed is bad (less THC).

    Of course, you can buy feminised seeds ( more expensive)
    Fucking racket!!

    , or grow clones from cuttings (more complicated).
    False. Cut branch from plant, stick cut end of branch into soil. Water. Wait. Easy game. You can make it even easier if you use a little rooting hormone, which costs about 3 bucks and is probably available at 30 different stores within 50 miles of your location.

    Right, so that's it? What nutrients are you using?
    Dirt

    What additives?
    Water

    Any enzymes?
    No

    What about pest control?
    Grow inside and keep the door closed.

    How are you controlling the humidity and temperature?
    Same way I control humidity and temperature everywhere else in my life.

    What about security? It might be legal now, but it's still valuable, and therefore there is a risk of being robbed.
    Don't be fucking stupid. First rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. Second rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. If a would-be robber somehow knows that you have weed to be robbed, then you deserve whatever happens to you.

    And then there's the risk of mould when it's drying out.
    I think you mean mold. And no, it's not a risk.

    There is so much to take into account, that it's overwhelming for someone who only intends to invest half an hour a day.
    A half hour a day?? Jesus, what are you doing that takes that much time?? Are you one of those weirdos who reads to his plants?

    Yes, nearly anyone can learn these processes, it's not rocket science. But it is science, and is not as simple as people seem to think.
    It's actually simpler

    Huh? Since when does it have a short shelf life? If it's dried and stored properly, it'll last indefinitely.
    No it won't. It will get dry, and brittle, and shitty within like two weeks, usually less. Sure it will still get you high, but your lungs will hate you.

    It might "decay" from a high THC product to a high CBN product, but that isn't necessarily a problem,
    Sounds like a problem to me.

    unless you specifically want a high THC product.
    Who doesn't?
  40. #6565
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    ITT I learned the basics of growing weed.
    Really? It's not substantially different than growing turnips, or beets, or whatever tasteless vegetables you Canadians like to eat.

    Put soil in pot. Put seed in soil. Add water. Don't touch it. Easy game.
  41. #6566
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    I stopped reading when you answered "yes" to the question "is buying a shade, bulb and ballast more challenging than getting nutrients and ph right?"

    Since it's so easy for you, how do you adjust your ph? What kind of range are you looking to hit? What adjustment do you make if the leaves are yellow rather than green?

    So? Trying to "boost yield" beyond what can be produced by any quality brand soil, straight out of the bag, seems unnecessary. Why fuck with teh soil? Just boost yield by growing more plants.
    I'm weak, I kept reading.

    I thought you were business minded. "Growing more plants" might be an effective way of boosting yield, but it's not the most efficient way of doing this. You should be seeking to boost yield per square metre.

    The plant still grows right? Sheesh man. It's not that complicated. The soil is sold in stores, already nutrient-ized. People grow all kinds of shit in that soil and don't sweat about oxygen content or bugs.
    You're growing inferior quality bud compared to hydroponics growers. If you're happy to smoke it, fair enough, but I probably wouldn't smoke it out of preference.

    None of this is really relevant if you're just trying to grow weed for personal use.
    Yeah, fair enough. However, if you prefer to smoke weed that blows your head off, you're gonna need to do better than throwing water into soil.

    yes it is.
    Depends on the strain. Also depends if you know what to look for. It takes experience. I'm not sure I could do it, because when I grew weed it was from cuttings, so they're clones of a known female.

    Huh? I was under the impression that male plants didn't have seeds. I thought that female plants used their THC to produce seeds, which is why seed-y weed is bad (less THC).
    Male plants don't have seeds, they pollenate the females which do produce seeds. This is most definitely undesireable. I dunno if the THC is used to produce seeds, but certainly bud from pollenated females is very much inferior.

    False. Cut branch from plant, stick cut end of branch into soil. Water. Wait. Easy game. You can make it even easier if you use a little rooting hormone, which costs about 3 bucks and is probably available at 30 different stores within 50 miles of your location.
    No mention of a propogator, seperate growing tent with weaker light, higher humidity etc? I'll be surprised if you're hitting five ounces per square metre, and I'll be further surprised if you're getting nice fat buds.

    Grow inside and keep the door closed.
    Yeah good luck with that. When you're smoking it, do you ever hear popping? That's spider mites exploding.

    Don't be fucking stupid. First rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. Second rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. If a would-be robber somehow knows that you have weed to be robbed, then you deserve whatever happens to you.
    Right, you have the basics in security by not talking. Well done. Now adapt to the modern age. You need to make sure you have no obvious heat signature, because in today's world, especially if you're in a built up area, gangs are flying drones with infrared cameras to spot potential grows. So any ventilated air needs to be cool enough to not cause the exit vent to glow up more than your neighbours. Or better still, you need to be in the middle of nowhere.

    I think you mean mold. And no, it's not a risk.
    No, we created the language. It's mould, you guys get it wrong. And yes, it's a risk, assuming you're not in control of humidity. Perhaps you live in a desert, in which case, fair enough, mould isn't a risk, assuming you have at least basic ventilation.

    A half hour a day?? Jesus, what are you doing that takes that much time?? Are you one of those weirdos who reads to his plants?
    I had the radio on so they had music.

    I wasn't growing from soil, so I had to make up a nutrient solution, adjust the ph, and feed it to them. I would also remove any dead or dying leaves, sometimes cut off lower branches that won't produce anything. I'd also prepare more water... it takes a couple of days for chlorine to clear from tap water, so I'd have a couple of tanks with air stones in to oxygenate the water. This needs rotation and topping up. All in all, I was doing well if I was in and out in under an hour. Still, better than grinding ten hours doing somethign I hate doing.

    It's actually simpler
    I really do expect your weed to be shit.

    No it won't. It will get dry, and brittle, and shitty within like two weeks, usually less. Sure it will still get you high, but your lungs will hate you.
    Cure it properly, and this doesn't happen. Quite the opposite. Weed that has been properly cured will taste better after a month, two months, sometimes six months. Depends on the strain and how quickly the THC breaks down to CBN, depends on temperature and humidity, and oxygen.

    Sounds like a problem to me.
    Not at all. CBN is where it's at when it comes to the medicinal side of things. Some people want a smoke that will get them mildly high while stopping their knees from aching. Other people just want to be blazed. I'm in the latter group, so I prefer high THC products, but high CBN products still have enough THC to get me high.

    Who doesn't?
    My mate who has MS.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #6567
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I thought you were business minded. "Growing more plants" might be an effective way of boosting yield, but it's not the most efficient way of doing this. You should be seeking to boost yield per square metre.
    *ahem*
    cubic meter
    Not that it's correct. You want to boost income $$ per capital investment $$.
    That's not necessarily a "more yield at same style infrastructure = +EV."


    Outdoor plants get the benefit of a huge sky, with power per square meter of sky higher than you can reasonably get indoors. Plus it's free.

    Hydro in a greenhouse?I
    Is that a thing? Seems to get the best of both worlds.
  43. #6568
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    cubic meter
    Sort of. I mean yeah, technically, you're right. But height only does so much. I worked on the basis of floorspace in square metres, and considered height as a seperate issue. Generally, taller plants are better, but they take longer to vegetate. The bud is concentrated near the top, so much of the height is wasted. Some methods (sea of green, for example), produce outstanding results from very short plants. So I only used cubic metres as a unit of measurement when it comes to extraction, not when it comes to plant space and yield. Time limits, height limits and growing method determine height, while floor space efficiency is all about care. They should be consiered separately.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #6569
    I stopped reading when you answered "yes" to the question "is buying a shade, bulb and ballast more challenging than getting nutrients and ph right?"
    That's unfortunate. You're only robbing yourself of useful information. Soil comes in a bag, already nutrient-ized and ph balanced. Lights you have to buy bubs, fixtures, you have to plug them in, etc. Much much more complicated.

    Since it's so easy for you, how do you adjust your ph?
    I don't. I start with the right ph cause I'm so fucking smart.

    What kind of range are you looking to hit?
    The good one.

    What adjustment do you make if the leaves are yellow rather than green?
    This is a trick question. Discoloration could be for lots of reasons, not just ph. But in most cases, just let it keep growing. If it sucks, start over.

    I'm weak, I kept reading.
    Good, I hope you learned something

    I thought you were business minded
    Right. Which means that I care about more than just having the tippy-top quality product. If I can have a product that's 90% as good as the best, but takes about 50% less time and resources....that's a business-minded win.

    "Growing more plants" might be an effective way of boosting yield, but it's not the most efficient way of doing this. You should be seeking to boost yield per square metre.
    If one square meter doesn't produce enough weed for me to smoke, I'll just plant two square meters. Don't get all uptight about some contrived and arbitrary industry metric.

    Besides, I'm pretty sure you're just talking out your ass here. I'm not about to believe that potheads are perfectionists.

    You're growing inferior quality bud compared to hydroponics growers. If you're happy to smoke it, fair enough, but I probably wouldn't smoke it out of preference.
    Inferior is such a loaded word. If we're talking about market capitalization, then Burger King is inferior to McDonalds. Burger King is still a really really huge company and the Whopper is still a kick-ass sandwich. Splitting hairs over which is better seems like something only an obese degenerate with too much time on his hands would do. A real beef connoisseur wouldn't get his meat at either place though. He'd migrate to the much higher quality burgers offered by butchers and non-fast-food restaurants.

    In pot terms, even if I did stipulate that my stuff was 'inferior' to the hydro stuff, it's still gonna get you fucking high. High enough that you wouldn't' really care about an incremental improvement. Only a degenerate pot-head who's reached an abrupt dead end in life would be splitting hairs over incremental improvements in their pot-high. Someone who really wants to get high would just move on to a harder drug.

    Yeah, fair enough. However, if you prefer to smoke weed that blows your head off, you're gonna need to do better than throwing water into soil
    Or....here's an idea. Maybe just don't smoke for a day or two, then go back to it. Head blown!

    Depends on the strain
    Meh, not really
    Also depends if you know what to look for.
    Pick up your phone and say "OK GOOGLE, how do I tell the difference between male and female marijuana plants". Or if you're an iPhone user, ask Siri. Problem solved
    It takes experience.
    No, it takes a 3 second web search
    I'm not sure I could do it,
    You should cut back your smoking then. Clearly it's having undesirable side-effects.
    because when I grew weed it was from cuttings, so they're clones of a known female.
    "known"? How would you know?

    I dunno if the THC is used to produce seeds, but certainly bud from pollenated females is very much inferior.
    It's because all the THC is in the seeds. See, you learned something!

    No mention of a propogator,
    What the fuck for?
    seperate growing tent
    Jesus you just love overhead huh?
    with weaker light, higher humidity etc?
    Why so it will grow slower?

    I'll be surprised if you're hitting five 0.46 ounces per square metre foot,
    Fixed your post

    and I'll be further surprised if you're getting nice fat buds
    Who cares. It's all ash and vapor in the end anyway.

    Yeah good luck with that. When you're smoking it, do you ever hear popping?
    No, never.

    That's spider mites exploding.
    Jesus man, I thought you lived in Jolly old England? Now you're talking like your pot farm is deep in a Peruvian rainforest. If you have a problem with spiders, take it up with your landlord.

    Right, you have the basics in security by not talking. Well done.
    Done and done.

    Now adapt to the modern age
    Don't need to.

    You need to make sure you have no obvious heat signature, because in today's world, especially if you're in a built up area, gangs are flying drones with infrared cameras to spot potential grows.
    Or....you could just move. Honestly, if there is this kind of drug gang activity in your area, you should probably stay the fuck out of the drug business.

    No, we created the language. It's mould, you guys get it wrong
    Fuck your sister in the eye!! The word clearly contains a short 'o' vowel sound. Phonetically, a single "o" is all that's necessary. Silent letters are fucking dumb.

    And yes, it's a risk, assuming you're not in control of humidity. Perhaps you live in a desert, in which case, fair enough, mould isn't a risk, assuming you have at least basic ventilation.
    How about you just try living somewhere that where it doesn't rain 300 days a year.

    I had the radio on so they had music.
    Pot plants like high-volume Ann Murray songs. Enjoy your life.

    I wasn't growing from soil, so I had to make up a nutrient solution, adjust the ph, and feed it to them
    Dude, soil is like 4 bucks and it's carried by almost any store you can name.

    I would also remove any dead or dying leaves, sometimes cut off lower branches that won't produce anything.
    That's called gardening, and it takes like 9 seconds. What are you spending the other 29 minutes 51 seconds doing?

    I'd also prepare more water... it takes a couple of days for chlorine to clear from tap water, so I'd have a couple of tanks with air stones in to oxygenate the water. This needs rotation and topping up.
    I'll be generous and give you a full two minutes for this. You still have nearly 28 minutes left.

    All in all, I was doing well if I was in and out in under an hour.
    Surely this includes some very liberal smoke breaks.

    I really do expect your weed to be shit.
    Correction, it's "the shit"

    Cure it properly, and this doesn't happen.
    Yes it does
    Last edited by BananaStand; 05-19-2017 at 01:40 PM.
  45. #6570
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Outdoor plants get the benefit of a huge sky, with power per square meter of sky higher than you can reasonably get indoors. Plus it's free.
    Outdoor plants also benefit from the light strength being near identical at the top of the plant compared to the bottom. Indoor plants do not have this luxury, so the bottom of the plant is gettijng a lot less light than the top. You'll understand the physics behind this, inverse square law... the sun is millions of miles away which means the light is only a fraction weaker a metre further away. An indoor bulb will be perhaps two metres off the ground, so the height of the plant is suddenly a large percentage of the distance the light needs to travel. The light is four times as strong 10 centimeters away than it is 20 centimetres away. Therefore, indoor plants perform very well at the top of the plant, and very poorly lower down.

    Outdoor growing has greater pest problems though, plus you need the climate, which we don't have. I guess we could do it in a greenhouse with hydro, but it's not very subtle. America benefits from being huge. It's not going to be easy to hide a greenhouse full of weed in England.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #6571
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Wait... who looks at a greenhouse and thinks, "Now that's suspicious?"
    Do you have patrolling greenhouse inspectors over there or something?

    Did you build your greenhouse on or adjacent to your neighbor's property / in a place where children are frolicking about, like a neighborhood?



    I feel pretty confident that, while America is bigger than Great Britain, there are still acres of undeveloped forested land available for purchase at a reasonable price.
  47. #6572
    Or just do what cheech and chong did. Empty your swimming pool, and stretch a canopy of light blue fabric over the top so that it still looks like a pool of water from the air.

    But under the fabric....ganja town
  48. #6573
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    I don't. I start with the right ph cause I'm so fucking smart.
    I wouldn't say smart. I'd just say unmotivated by quality. Soil is inferior to hydropnoics, however it's much easier for reasons you state... no fucking about with ph and nutrient levels.

    Besides, I'm pretty sure you're just talking out your ass here. I'm not about to believe that potheads are perfectionists.
    lol we are when it comes to weed quality.

    Inferior is such a loaded word. If we're talking about market capitalization, then Burger King is inferior to McDonalds. Burger King is still a really really huge company and the Whopper is still a kick-ass sandwich. Splitting hairs over which is better seems like something only an obese degenerate with too much time on his hands would do. A real beef connoisseur wouldn't get his meat at either place though. He'd migrate to the much higher quality burgers offered by butchers and non-fast-food restaurants.
    Interesting. Apart from being wrong about Maccies being better than Buger King, you hit an interesting point here.

    A real beef connoisseur wouldn't get his meat at either place though.
    Here you acknowledge that there is a taxable market for weed post-leagalisation. You might not be a weed connoisseur, but I am. 90% quality is not good enough for me, given a choice. So if my weed is 90% but I can get 99% by spending £20, I'll probably just spend the money and not bother with the hassle.

    Because I was a perfectionist when I was growing, my weed was quality. Most stoners though will either settle for soil plants, and with it inferior quality, or buy quality products from other good growers. A few though will actually enjoy the science aspect of growing, and embrace it.

    In pot terms, even if I did stipulate that my stuff was 'inferior' to the hydro stuff, it's still gonna get you fucking high. High enough that you wouldn't' really care about an incremental improvement.
    The improvement that matters when we already have a nice high is taste, and you're certainly missing a trick there because you're not curing it. Plus you're still feeding them nutrients right until you chop them down, since you're growing in soil. Therefore, there will be nutrients in the smoke, affecting quality. Hydro growers flush their product for a week before chopping, which means just water to flush out the nutrients. This improves taste a great deal. Then it's cured, improving taste better.

    That what weed connisseurs give a fuck about, not incremental increases in how stoned we get.

    "known"? How would you know?
    Is this question even serious? Generally, I would take cuttings from a mother plant. I know the mother is female after one successful crop, but I already had supreme confidence before flowering the first cuttings because the mother itself would've come from a cutting I obtained from a grower friend who could only give me a male "mother" if he was being a cunt.

    If you didn't know, taking a clone means creating a genetic copy... so if the mother is female, so are all the cuttings.

    Jesus man, I thought you lived in Jolly old England? Now you're talking like your pot farm is deep in a Peruvian rainforest. If you have a problem with spiders, take it up with your landlord.
    haha itt a weed grower thinks spider mites are spiders. Holy fuck how do you avoid infestation?

    Fuk yor sister in the eye!! The word clearly contains a short 'o' vowl sound. Fonetically, a single "o" is all that's necessary. Silent letters are fuking dum.
    Fixed your post.

    Pot plants like high-volume Ann Murray songs. Enjoy your life.
    Mine had a diet of Future Sound Of London. Gonna listen to Ann Murray while I continue responding to your baiting.

    Dude, soil is like 4 bucks and it's carried by almost any store you can name.
    It's also inferior.

    Ann Murray lasted four seconds. Jesus wept.

    Surely this includes some very liberal smoke breaks.
    Exactly. Plus a cup of tea. I'm in no hurry about things. Still, that's how I want to work. Slowly, with my entire day's work done in under an hour. All this talk about growing has really made me want to do it again. Kinda hope Lib Dems win. A disaster in every way possible except I'd be able to grow weed.

    Yes it does
    No, it doesn't. If you're curing it and it tatses like crap after a month, you're doing it wrong. Make sure it's dry, then put it in a jar with a little air at the top. Open it daily, mix it about, replace the air, close it. After a week or so of this, keep the jar closed for a month.

    You're welcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #6574
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ann Murray lasted four seconds. Jesus wept.
    Ha ha ha ha ha. Enjoy having that shit stuck in your head for the next week.
  50. #6575
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ha ha ha ha ha. Enjoy having that shit stuck in your head for the next week.
    Nah I need to really know a song before that happens. I'm more likely to remember something equally as awful, for example the Carpenters, and get one of their songs stuck in my head.

    Nope, I'm trying, but I think I've finally forgotten all their songs. Outstanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #6576
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Wait... who looks at a greenhouse and thinks, "Now that's suspicious?"
    Do you have patrolling greenhouse inspectors over there or something?

    Did you build your greenhouse on or adjacent to your neighbor's property / in a place where children are frolicking about, like a neighborhood?



    I feel pretty confident that, while America is bigger than Great Britain, there are still acres of undeveloped forested land available for purchase at a reasonable price.
    It's really not that simple. When I was growing, I was out in the countryside. The property I was at was certainly not big enough to hide a greenhouse, but even if it was it wouldn't be practical. Our country just isn't very big. The military tend to use countryside airspace for their training. I regularly saw jets flying over the region, and once a chinook flew so low over the house that the dog tried to chase it off. I made eye contact with the soldiers sitting on the side, like it was a scene from a fucking film.

    Weed plants look like weed plants. They don't really look like tomato or carrot plants, or whatever people usually grow in greenhouses. I wouldn't want my crop exposed to the sky, not unless it was just a couple of personal plants anyway.

    It's just so much easier to hide a crop if it's indoors.

    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    Or just do what cheech and chong did. Empty your swimming pool, and stretch a canopy of light blue fabric over the top so that it still looks like a pool of water from the air.

    But under the fabric....ganja town
    Great idea.

    Wait, I don't have a swimming pool.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #6577
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Great idea.

    Wait, I don't have a swimming pool.
    This reminds me your idea to evaporate yourself to coolness. Warm weather coming up, have you got your tub of water ready?
  53. #6578
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    I've got better plans for this weekend of nice weather. It's my regular music festival, we keep getting good weather.

    But yeah I anticipate incoming computer problems again. Gonna get a houseplant with big leaves, lots of surface area.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #6579
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Gonna get a houseplant with big leaves, lots of surface area.
    Should you be admitting that on the internet?
  55. #6580
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Yeah that isn't code for "16 cannabis plants" or anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #6581
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    This reminds me your idea to evaporate yourself to coolness.
  57. #6582
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I've got better plans for this weekend of nice weather. It's my regular music festival, we keep getting good weather.

    But yeah I anticipate incoming computer problems again. Gonna get a houseplant with big leaves, lots of surface area.
    I'm not sure what this will accomplish aside from adding a source of more humidity in the room.

    Adding anything into the room, which is wholly contained in the room, cannot have a long-term affect on the temperature of the room. If it isn't transporting thermal energy from inside the space to outside the space, then it's not changing the temperature.

    EDIT: If you put a bucket of ice in the room, by having transported low thermal energy material into the room, this will have a temporary cooling effect, but no long-term effect.

    DOUBLE EDIT: Damn... if you add a radioactive heat source with a long half-life, then I concede that it could have a "long-term" effect on the time scales I was implicitly talking about.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-24-2017 at 09:49 AM.
  58. #6583
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah that isn't code for "16 cannabis plants" or anything.
    I thought it was hilarious when I was a teen reading HHGG in the scene in one of the later books, the team finds themselves in some spaceship run on the bistromathic drive. In the book, it says there was a "pot plant" in the corner. I guessed that it meant a "potted" plant and not a "pot" plant, but didn't know this was common usage in Britain.

    So if you told me you had a pot plant in your office, I wouldn't necessarily think you meant a marijuana plant, so long as I believe you're British.
  59. #6584
    I repeat my advice to Ong to buy (or make) a bag of ice and put it in front of a fan blowing on your face. At least you'll feel cooler and it can't hurt the temp. of the room.
  60. #6585
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm not sure what this will accomplish aside from adding a source of more humidity in the room.
    Ya I don't know where the cooling houseplant idea came from. Next he will be getting some kind of animal - a penguin maybe?
  61. #6586
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Humidity isn't the problem, it's temperature. If humidity is increasing, temperature is decreasing thanks to transvaporation. Greater surface area means greater transvaporation.

    As for removing the energy from the room, it's not so much of an issue, assuming the room is warmer when I'm using it than not (computer on, my body heat, seem likely). Evaporation will increase when the room is in use, then when I turn the comp off, condensation will begin to happen. This is where energy is returned to the atmosphere in the form of heat... when I'm not using it.

    Plants are excellent at regulating temperature.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #6587
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Plants are excellent at regulating temperature.
    According to who?

    I never heard of someone saying 'i wish we could afford a/c' and their spouse saying 'don't worry honey, we'll just get a banana plant'.
  63. #6588
    Also, would it not work better if you just doused yourself with water every half hour and let it evaporate off your skin? Isn't that how sweating works?
  64. #6589
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Also, would it not work better if you just doused yourself with water every half hour and let it evaporate off your skin? Isn't that how sweating works?
    This sounds less appealing than sitting next to a plant.

    According to who?
    idk, science?

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LAI/LAI2.php

    Plants also cool the landscape directly through the process known as transpiration. When the surrounding atmosphere heats up, plants will often release excess water into the air from their leaves. By releasing evaporated water, plants cool themselves and the surrounding environment.
    ^ that's how sweating works. Get hot, release water, it evaporates, it cools. Of course, just like sweating, it also has no effect if relative humidity is 100%, because the air is saturated and no more evaporation can take place.

    But the temperature and humidity will regulate themselves. As the air cools, relative humidity rises, condensation happens, energy is released in the form of heat, air warms up, relative humidity falls, evaporation happens, air cools... and with this cycle is thermal regulation.

    So long as I don't have a constant relative humidity of 90% or more, it'll cool the room while it's being used, at least a little bit. More than an a/c unit? Probably not, but it's cheaper, nicer, and might be enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #6590
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I cannot support candidate ong, given his willy-nilly nonchalance when it comes to conservation of energy.

    This is the election thread, right?
  66. #6591
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This sounds less appealing than sitting next to a plant.



    idk, science?

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LAI/LAI2.php



    ^ that's how sweating works. Get hot, release water, it evaporates, it cools. Of course, just like sweating, it also has no effect if relative humidity is 100%, because the air is saturated and no more evaporation can take place.

    But the temperature and humidity will regulate themselves. As the air cools, relative humidity rises, condensation happens, energy is released in the form of heat, air warms up, relative humidity falls, evaporation happens, air cools... and with this cycle is thermal regulation.

    So long as I don't have a constant relative humidity of 90% or more, it'll cool the room while it's being used, at least a little bit. More than an a/c unit? Probably not, but it's cheaper, nicer, and might be enough.
    The plant is going to cool itself and maybe the surrounding 1cm of space. So unless you get a vine and let it grow around and on you while you sit at your computer, you're not going to benefit from this mad plan to cool yourself with vegetation.

    Also there's a nonzero chance you end up smoking the plant, whatever it is, and that would raise the temperature even more.
  67. #6592
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I cannot support candidate ong, given his willy-nilly nonchalance when it comes to conservation of energy.

    This is the election thread, right?
    Campaigning has been suspended due to the horrific terrorist act, will be back up again later this week.
  68. #6593
    I gotta say, it seems pretty dubious for May to be making a public spectacle over her decision to stop sharing information with Trump. Apparently she doesn't like the fact that intelligence shared was leaked to the US media.

    Is this bitch serious????

    The guy's been in office for four months now and a week has not gone by where enemies in the deep state have not leaked something sensitive to the press.

    Seems like May is the fool for saying anything to Trump in the first place. How did she not expect it to get leaked?

    That's like walking up to someone with advanced Parkinsons disease and saying "Here, will you please hold my premature hemophiliac baby"
  69. #6594
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    I think the best explanation is that May is a fucking idiot and is completely out of her depth.

    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    The plant is going to cool itself and maybe the surrounding 1cm of space.
    Which, in turn, cools the next 1cm (cubed) of space.

    It takes energy for a molecule to change from liquid to vapour. That energy is exchanged in the form of heat from atmosphere to molecule. That heat isn't returned until the molecule condenses again.

    The effect might be negligible, but it's worth a shot. I mean, it's cheaper than new computer or a/c unit.

    Also there's a nonzero chance you end up smoking the plant, whatever it is, and that would raise the temperature even more.
    This is possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #6595
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    How are we talking about the evaporation cycle in two different threads?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #6596
    Thought Ong might be posting about the party leaders being on tv last night, nope still plants.
  72. #6597
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    I'm trying really hard to not give a fuck about politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #6598
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm trying really hard to not give a fuck about politics.
    ITS TOMORROW WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
  74. #6599
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,937
    Location
    England
    I'm getting up at 5am and fucking off to the seaside.

    Fuck. This. Shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #6600
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm getting up at 5am and fucking off to the seaside.

    Fuck. This. Shit.
    I was actually getting a bit excited at the thought of the tories losing some seats but they'll make slight gains. May coming out with the internet getting restrictions, spying on everyone and getting rid of human rights. Pretty awful stuff.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •